Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/516/2022

Suruchi - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kuamr

13 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/516/2022
Date of Institution	:	17/05/2022
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2022

 

 

 

Suruchi daughter of Sh.Raj Thakur, aged about 39 years, r/o House No.M-23, GH 94, PGI Enclave, Sector 20, Panchkula.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

2]  SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. & Corporate Office: M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400069 through Managing Director.

3]  Ram Vilas Bansal, Territory Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Panchkula.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR            PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA           MEMBER

                            

 

Argued by :-  Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant

           Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OPs

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

          Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are, allured by the green pastures projected by the Opposite Party No.2 of high returns, the Complainant purchased one Insurance Policy bearing No. 35615395710 from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, with lock-in-period of five years and for getting benefits of the said policy, she had to pay the annual premium of Rs.29,988/- for at least five years. Accordingly, in terms of the said policy, without any default, the Complainant paid annual premium @ Rs.29,988/- from 2017 to 2021 totaling to Rs.1,48,204/-. After five years, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 with a request to release the deposited amount along with interest and also complied with all the paper formalities.  However, instead of releasing the deposited amount, the Opposite Parties released only a sum of Rs.1,26,815/- and illegally withheld with Rs.21,389/- without any rhyme & reasons. The Complainant lodged her protest by way of e-mails, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

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

 

3]       Opposite Parties contested the Complaint and filed their reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that they have paid the surrender value payable as per the terms & conditions of the policy and nothing more is payable. Further on surrender the policy contract has ended and all the rights under the policy have been extinguished. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4]       The complainant has filed rejoinder, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5]       Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have gone through the entire record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Opposite Parties and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.

 

7]       The core question for consideration before us is whether the Opposite Parties were justified in withholding the amount of Rs.21,389/- from the total amount payable to the Complainant on surrender of the policy in question after the completion of 5 years period.  

 

8]       Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

9]       Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,48,204/-, referred to above, towards premiums, in respect of the policy in question, but only a sum of Rs.1,26,815/- was transferred to her. According to him, the said act of the Opposite Parties of not releasing the entire amount deposited by the Complainant as premiums, amounts to deficiency in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

 

10]      Per contra, Opposite Parties have submitted that they were not deficient in rendering service to the Complainant, in as much as, she was rightly paid the surrender value Rs.1,26,815/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been argued that the Complainant is not entitled for the relief prayed for as she had availed the insurance cover for the period for which the premium was paid by her.

 

11]      Undisputedly, the policy in question issued to the Complainant is SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Policy, which is an endowment plan. Generally, endowment plans come with a lock-in period of stipulated years, where, if the policy is surrendered before the completion of the prerequisite lock-in period, the entire paid amount gets devalued, leaving zero refund for the policyholder. The policy in question is a regular premium policy having annual premium payment mode of 7 years with basic sum assured of Rs.1,81,000/- and similar sum assured for preferred term rider. It is that case of the complainant that OP No.3 has specifically informed that after the lock-in-period of 5 years, she can withdraw the amount along with interest. Per record, the date of commencement of the policy was 11.03.2017 and the policy was to mature on 11.03.2024, but was surrendered by the Complainant on 17.01.2022 (as per assurance given by OP No.3 at the time of selling the policy) after paying the premium for five years.

         Interestingly, Opposite Parties in their written version have maintained that the Complainant did not pay minimum three full yearly premiums under the policy and hence, the policy has also not acquired any paid up value and thus paid up value is also not payable to the Complainant. The Complainant has specifically averred in her Complaint that Opposite Party No.3 informed her that she would be entitled to withdraw the amount along with benefits after the lock-in-period of five years. Though, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have admitted that the proposal was sourced by their Insurance Advisor (Opposite Party No.3 Mr. Ramesh Chandra Verma having IA Code No. 990553974), but in the same breath have denied that the lock-in-period is five years and the Complainant need to pay atleast five years premium upon which she can withdraw the amount along with benefits.  To our mind, it is only the said Mr.Ramesh Chandra Verma who could throw light on the aspect that he has made the Complainant to purchase the policy in question on aforesaid conditions. However, neither the Opposite Parties placed on record anything to prove the same, nor there is any document, much less affidavit of said Mr. Ramesh Chandra Verma to that effect.  The self serving affidavit in support of the reply of Ms. Neelam Singh, AVP Legal/authorized representative of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. is not sufficient to prove the said fact. At any rate, the Opposite Parties cannot withhold any amount from the deposited amount of the Complainant, especially when they failed to show any provision to justify their action of withholding the amount of the Complainant. At any rate, only a nominal charge is required to be deducted and on surrendering of the policy post five years from the commencement date, the fund value, as available on the date of request, is payable and the policy benefits cease. The contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has already availed the insurance cover for the period, for which the premium is paid by her, is wholly irrelevant and cannot be accepted even remotely in the present context. Undoubtedly, justice according to the law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law is to be administered to advance justice.     

         More so, as per Non-Forfeiture Benefits clause under the policy, a policy having less than 10 years terms, on payment of at least 2 full policy years’ premiums acquires full paid up value.  By applying this clause of Non Forfeiture, the complainant is entitled to full refund, which has been denied by the OP and it certainly caused her loss and harassment.

 

12]      In the wake of above, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine.  The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have redressed the grievance of the Complainant forthwith, which it miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. Thus, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.

 

11]      In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are directed as under:-

(i) To pay an amount of Rs.21,389/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of the deposit till its realization.

(ii) To pay Rs.10,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

(iii)    To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant.

 

12]      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.  

         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

                

	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/09/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls	Member	Presiding Member