DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=============

Amarjit Singh Arora son of Shri Balbir Singh Arora, resident of H-175 Spangle Heights Dhakoli Zirakpur, Mohali.

---Complainant

Vs

[1]     SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, SCO 109-110, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

[2]     SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Chief Operating Officer, Kapas Bhawan, Plot No.3A, Sector 10 CBD Belapur, Nai Mumbai.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                            PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                     MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                   MEMBER

Argued By:  Sh. Aman Bansal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                The Complainant in the instant complaint has stated that he had applied for and obtained a ‘Shubh Nivesh Plan’ from the Opposite Parties for which he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He was given to understand that the Plan would cover life insurance as well as medical insurance during the term of plan and he would have to pay Rs.50,000/- for 5 years. He was also told that he would get a total amount of Rs.5.19 lacs at the end of five years. He was also offered an incentive/ commission of Rs.12,500/- for subscription of Rs.50,000/- for the first year.

                   The Complainant has further stated that attracted by the offer, he signed the proposal form without filling in the details and provided all the requisite documents to the representative of the Opposite Parties for taking the Policy. He was told that the form would be filled by the office staff after confirming the options available. He was handed over a temporary acknowledgment which is at Annexure C-1. 

                   The Complainant has stated that when he received the policy no. 36001393210 dated 16.10.2010, it was for ‘Life Long Pension Pay Plan’. When he contacted one Mr. Tyagi, in the office of the Opposite Parties, he was assured that new policy documents under ‘Shubh Nivesh Plan’ will be sent to him soon. Thereafter, the Complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Parties a number of times, but no effective steps were taken by the Opposite Parties to change the wrong policy.

                   The Complainant also approached the IRDA with his grievance, but nothing effective was ever done. He has, thus, filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony, with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to cancel the Policy and refund the amount of Rs.50,000/-, along with interest and compensation, besides cost of litigation.

2.                After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                Opposite Parties in reply, have stated that the policy in question was sourced to them by an insurance broker. As per the IRDA guidelines, a broker may be appointed by an insurer for soliciting business. If an insurance broker acts in violation of the provisions of applicable law, the insurance broker alone is liable to be proceeded against by the aggrieved party and not the insurer, who has appointed him within the parameters of the applicable law.

                   The Opposite Parties have further stated that they have issued a SBI Life Long Pension Policy to the Complainant on the basis of his duly signed and submitted proposal form. The complaint is effectively against the broker M/s Vignaharta Direct Insurance Broking Pvt. Limited, who has sourced the policy in question and the Opposite Parties are not responsible for the acts of commission or omission on the part of the broker. Hence, the allegations require thorough investigation for which the matter should be relegated to the Civil Courts.  

                   The Opposite Parties have also stated that they have issued the policy based on the proposal form duly filled in and signed by the Complainant and the person executing the documents is responsible for its contents and hence, cannot plead ignorance at a later stage.  The broker who has sourced the policy is licensed by IRDA to solicit and procure business for any life insurer. The Opposite Parties have not received any free look cancellation request from the Complainant. Hence, mere allegations against the company without supportive evidence cannot make the company liable in the present complaint.

                   On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to and denying the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Opposite Parties have submitted that the Complainant had applied for SBI Life Long Pension Plus Plan, with an initial deposit of Rs.50,000/- and a premium paying term of 5 years.  A benefit illustration dated 4.10.2010 duly signed by the Complainant was also received with the proposal form dated 4.10.2010. The Complainant had also signed the declaration under the proposal form. As there was no correction or overwriting in the details furnished in the proposal form, there was no cause to raise any suspicion about the same. Hence, the proposal form was accepted and the policy was issued accordingly.  SBI Life was not privy to what actually transpired between the Complainant and the broker.  The provision of cancellation under the free look period was not availed by the Complainant. The policy bond is the evidence of the contract of insurance and both the insurer and the insured are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. The policy bond, which is the evidence of insurance contract, does not provide for cancellation of policy and refund of premium at this point of time.

                   Denying all other averments of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                The Complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum for refund of an amount of Rs.50,000/- which had been invested by him against the ‘Shubh Nivesh Plan’ as per Annexure C-1, which is the temporary acknowledgement issued to him by the Agent of the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 

                    The Opposite Parties have placed reliance on Annexure-A, which is the proposal form duly signed by the Complainant.

                   The Complainant has stated that the proposal form has been filled in by the Agent. The agent has not been made party to the dispute. The Opposite Parties have stated that they are not responsible for what has transpired between the Complainant and the agent. However, Annexure-A is self-explanatory. The heading of the proposal form reads “SBI Life – Lifelong Pension Plus”.   The term of the plan is 05 years and the annual premium is Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant has signed the proposal form. Even if the averments of the Complainant be believed that the particulars of the proposal form have been filled in by the Agent, the title of the proposal form is clear about the type of policy applied for. Hence, the type of policy proposed to be purchased is clear. 

7.                The Complainant after the receipt of the policy from the Opposite Parties has not applied to them for termination of the policy within the free look period and hence, this benefit has also been foregone by him.

                   Also, in case, the Complainant has been misguided by the Agent, he should at least have made him a party to the dispute to support his averments and contentions. It is evident that the Opposite Parties have issued a policy as per the proposal form submitted to them. Hence, the allegations of the Complainant about deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony against the Opposite Parties are not valid.  All other averments of the Complainant about his conversation with Mr. Tyagi or Mr. Gagan are not part of the record or proved. The other policies in other names as mentioned in the complaint also do not also have any relation to the present complaint.

8.                Hence, to our mind, looking at the entirety of the situation, the Complainant has not been able to prove any allegation of deficiency in service, harassment and mentally agony against the Opposite Parties. The policy issued by the Opposite Parties stands in his name and to his benefit, as Opposite Parties have not made any averment that the policy has lapsed/been cancelled. Also, letter, dated 12 July, 2011, issued by the Opposite Parties, is clear that the policy will be eligible for surrender on completion of the 1^st policy year, provided all premiums due during the 1^st year is paid. Surrender value as per clause 4.3 of the Schedule Part-III would be payable. The Complainant can apply for surrender accordingly.

                   At this stage, the instant complaint is not maintainable in terms of the relief prayed for and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

9.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

03^rd September, 2012.                                    

                             Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER