BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 593 of 2010

Date of Institution :  28.09.2010

Date of  Decision   :  04.07.2011

Shruti Singha d/o Hans Raj Singha, r/o Vill. Satuan, P.O. Koyal, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]  SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 109-110 [1^st Floor], Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, through the Regional Director.

[2]  SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 11-A, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh, through its Agent/ Facilitator Mr. Kailash Chand.

[3]  Mr. Sandeep Negi, Unit Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., Sanjoli, Shimla.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Rishi Karan Kakkar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Allured by the rosy pictures projected by the OPs, regarding their one time premium plan of Rs.2,00,000/-, the father of the Complainant – Capt. Hans Raj Singha availed the said policy for himself and made the Complainant as nominee therein. However, on receipt of the Policy documents, he found that none of the policy benefits, as assured by the OP No.3, had been extended to him. Further, OP No.3 instead of issuing the policy in the name of the father of the Complainant got a policy issued in the name of the Complainant and made the father of the Complainant as the nominee. It was alleged that the Policy was for a period of 05 years and was a market linked plan with investment in mutual funds etc. and there was no overdraft facility, as assured by the OP No.3, at the time of selling the Policy document. The Complainant was bound to pay the annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- to OP No.1 for a continuous period of 05 years to keep the policy active. In case of any default, the policy would automatically lapse. It was also alleged that contrary to the assurance that complete amount of premium paid would be adjusted in the unit allocated, Rs.33,287.33 was shown to have been deducted towards premium allocation charges, policy administration charges, mortality & rider charges, with service tax etc. Having left with no alternative, the Complainant wrote to OPs with a request to either correct the errors in the policy and extend all the facilities initially promised by OP No.3 or in the alternative cancel the policy or refund the money i.e. the premium charged by the OPs for issuance of the Policy. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OPs in their joint reply, while admitting the core facts of the case, pleaded that the Complainant had submitted a Proposal dated 21.12.2009 for Unit Plus II Regular Plan and paid the initial deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- towards first premium. The Policy in question was issued on the basis of the proposal form, which was duly signed by the Complainant. In the proposal form, the mode of payment of premium was mentioned as yearly and the term of the plan was indicated as 05 years. The policy holder has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms & conditions of the policy and in case, he/she was not satisfied with any of the terms & conditions, he/she could opt to return the policy under Free Look Period, stating the reasons for his/her objection. However, the Complainant did not exercise such an option. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]         We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

6]         The core facts of the case have all been admitted. A  perusal of the proposal form Annexure-A, placed on record by the OPs would make it abundantly clear that the policy was meant for 05 years and the said proposal form was duly signed by the Complainant herself, agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Policy. All this goes to show that the Complainant had gone through all the details of the policy and had signed the same by accepting the terms and conditions thereof. The OPs placed their sole reliance on Cl.21 of the terms and conditions of the policy, dealing with “Free Look Period”, a perusal of which makes it clear that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the Policy, she could have used the free look in period to cancel the same.

7]         The Complainant could get back her amount by opting to withdraw within a period of fifteen days after she received the Policy documents. When the Complainant had received the Policy, it was necessary for her to go through the same, but she did not like to discontinue the Policy and did not ask for the refund of the premium paid by her. Now, she cannot be heard saying if she has been cheated or the terms of the Policy told to her were different. The contention of the Complainant about the assurances has been denied by OPs, who have stated that no such assurance, as alleged by the Complainant, were ever given by them to the Complainant. The Complainant, however, has the right to surrender the Policy in accordance with the terms and conditions and the amount, if any, payable on surrender would be paid to her by the OPs. We, therefore, don’t find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs because being Insurance Company, it had issued insurance policy as per the proposal form, which was duly signed by the complainant. In case, the complainant was not satisfied with the above said policy, then she was at liberty to repudiate the same within 15 days i.e. during the free look period, but she had failed to do so. Hence, this version of the complainant that the insurance policy was wrongly issued to her cannot be accepted, because the OPs have proved that nothing was concealed from the complainant and the policy in question was issued after receiving the proposal form signed by the complainant.

8]         In view of the above discussion, in our considered onion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

9]         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.