Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1019/2012

Anita Rani W/o D.P.Mahindra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sushil Garg

06 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint  No. 1019 of 2012.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 29.09.2012

                                                                                          Date of decision: 06.06.2017

Smt. Anita Rani aged about 56 years wife of Sh. D.P.Mahindra, resident of 936, Press Street, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 304, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula-134109 (Haryana) through its Manager.
2. Embee Insurance Brokers Ltd, Excel Callnet Pvt. Ltd., 24/3, Industrial Area, Phase II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh through its Manager.
3. Harpreet Singh R/o H. No. 923-B, Prem Nagar, Street No.2, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                               

                                                                                                        …Respondents.  

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

              Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Complaint qua respondent No.2 dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2016.

              Respondent No.3 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER( ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant Anita  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto date.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) approached to the complainant to purchase life Insurance policy duly launched by OPs No.1 & 2 and posed  himself as authorized agent of OPs No.1 & 2. The OP No.3 stated that the policy is for one year and upon maturity, an interest @ 7% shall be paid and the policy also covered the medi claim pertaining to any illness during subsistence of the policy and upon the faith of Op No.3, the complainant agreed to take the policy whereupon the Op No.3 got signatures of complainant on various papers in blank columns and the contents of the said paper/forms were filled by the Op No.3 without prior consultation with the complainant. The OP No.3 stated that the said policy is for one time with regard to deposit of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant issued a cheque and the same was duly encashed by the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant was astonished to receive the copy of policy bearing No. 35015155406 dated 17.11.2011 (SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Whole Life Plan) for sum assured of Rs. 97,000/- with yearly premium of Rs. 29,880/- for 5 years, though when her son read the benefits as stated above in the policy, found missing and there was a wrong statement in the policy contents and in this regard the complainant telephonically contacted the OPs No.1 & 2 and brought her grievances in the knowledge of abovesaid OPs and stated that she is an house hold lady having no source of income to deposit the above huge amount for another four years as per the terms of the policy and requested to cancel the policy and refund the amount immediately but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant issued a registered AD legal notice dated 28.07.2012 to the OPs but the OP No.1 gave a false reply. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.3 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.02.2015. Complaint qua Op No.2 had already been dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2016. Op No.1 filed its written statement besides some preliminary objections, it has been stated on merit that the OP No.1 Insurance Company had issued the policy based on the proposal form duly signed and submitted by the complainant. The complainant did not raise any dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the policy during the free look period of 15 days and enjoyed the benefits of the policy for the period for which the premium was paid. The complainant has leveled false allegations against the OP No.1 Insurance Company without supporting evidence. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had declared in the proposal form under point 17 that “ I hereby declare that the forgoing statements and answers have been given by me after fully understanding the question and the same are true accurate and complete in every manner and that I have not withheld any information. Further, I have not provided any false information in reply to any information. I understand and agree that statement in this proposal constitute warranties. I do hereby agree and declare that these statements and this declaration shall be the basis of the contract of assurance between me and SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.” Accordingly, the OP No.1 Insurance Company based on the information furnished in the proposal form, issued insurance policy bearing No. 35015155406 with the date of commencement as 17.11.2011 (Annexure B). It has been further mentioned that the said policy was dispatched to the complainant on 19.11.2011 through speed post and in the said policy document on the first page itself, the free look cancellation clause is mentioned in which the complainant was having option to cancel the insurance policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents but in the present case complainant failed to opt the said option. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OP No.1.

4.                     In support of her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of letter dated 18.11.2011 regarding purchase of insurance policy as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of acknowledgment as Annexure C-3 and C-4, Photo copy of reply to legal notice as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of V. Srinivas as Annexure R1/A and documents such as photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R1/1, Photo copy of letter dated 18.11.2011 alongwith receipt and policy in question as Annexure R1/2, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure R1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that the Op No.3 stated that the policy is for one year and upon maturity an interest @ 7% per annum shall be paid and the policy also covered the medi claim to any illness during the policy subsists and in this regard she had issued a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- and when she received the copy of policy the benefits as stated above in the policy found missing and there was a wrong statement in the policy contents. She further alleged that she is an house hold lady having no source of income to deposit the abovesaid huge amount for another four years  and requested to the OP No.1 Insurance Company to refund the entire amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the OP No.1 Insurance Company but the OP No.1 Insurance Company refused to refund the same which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 Hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that the complaint of the complainant is nothing except abuse of process of law. The Insurance Policy in question was duly issued as per instructions and consent of the complainant himself. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 draw our attention towards the proposal form Annexure R1/1 and argued that this proposal form is duly signed by the complainant and accordingly based on the information furnished by the complainant herself the policy in question was issued to the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that the policy in question was issued for a period of 5 years with the annual premium of Rs. 30,000/-. However, the complainant failed to deposit the premium after paying the first installment and the policy in question was lying in lapse mode. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as IND Swift Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal No. 157 of 2006 decided on 17.09.2012, General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumall Jain & Another reported in 1966(3) SCR 500 Apex Court and  LIC Vs. Anil P. Tadsalkar (1) 1996 CPJ page 159 (NC), SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. M.A. Partha & Others Appeal No. 732 of 2011, State Commission Banglore and case titled as Rajesh Choudhary Versus Branch Manager, SBI Life, Frist Appeal No. 2173 of 2010 Madhya Pradesh State Commission. 

9                      After hearing both the parties , we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3 as it is duly evident that the policy in question has been issued on 17.11.2011 and the present complaint has been filed on 24.09.2012 i.e. after a period of near about 10 months by the complainant. Even prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant  has also issued a legal notice and requested the OP  No.1 so many times to refund the amount but the OP No.1 failed to listen the genuine request of the complainant.

10.                    On the other angle also, from the perusal of entire facts and circumstances mentioned in the complaint, it is clear that complainant has moved from pillar to post to get the entire amount deposited with the OP No.1 Insurance Company but nobody listened to her. We generally see that when we go to a bank, insurance company or any other institute there are voluminous documents which are required to be signed by the concerned person and it is also seen that every documents which is got signed is not humanly possible to be gone through by the concerned person, undue benefits is taken of this situation. Similarly seems to be the position in the case in hand and there is every possibility that signature of the complainant had been taken in this manner. The case law referred above by the counsel for the OP No.1 are not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and in the interest of justice and equity, we direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to refund the lump sum amount of Rs. 24,000/- to the complainant, after deducting the amount of Rs.6,000/- out of deposited amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of office expenses, commission of agents, stamp duty, service charges etc. whatsoever, alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 06.06.2017.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.

 

                        (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C. SHARMA )

                         MEMBER                                           MEMBER.