Haryana

Panchkula

CC/403/2019

JAMAN SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK KUMAR

17 Nov 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	403 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	09.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	17.11.2023

 

 

Jaman Singh Rawat, aged 72 years, son of Shri Avtar Singh Rawat, resident of House No.1183-A, Sector-12-A, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ground floor, Plot no.144,      Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.331, First Floor, Sector-     9, Panchkula-134109 through its Branch Manager.

3.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., 7^th Level (D Wing) & 8^th Level,        Seawoods Ground Central, Tower 2, Plot No.R-1, Sector 40,     Seawoods, Nerul Node, District Thane, Navi Mumbai- 400706        through its authorized signatory.

                                                                      ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.    

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.The brief facts, as alleged, in the present complaint are that the complainant had received a telephonic call from the executives of the insurance company i.e. OPs in the month of May 2014 informing him that the SBI Life Insurance Company has launched a new plan for senior citizen, which was a short term plan, just for three years and after the issuance of policy the complainant would get the regular return of Rs.1,140/- per month and after the term plan i.e. three years, the entire amount paid as premium would be liable to be  refunded  to him (the complainant); believing the version of the said executives of insurance company, the complainant had agreed to obtain the policy for short term and accordingly, the executives of the Ops visited his residence and received the cheque of Rs.99,900/- from him as single premium amount in lieu of the policy. It is stated that the Ops had issued policy no.22001029701 with date of commencement as 10.06.2014. The complainant was shocked and surprised in the month of July 2014, when he received the sum of Rs.810/- instead of Rs.1,140/- as assured by the Ops at the time of issuance of the policy. The complainant, thereafter, approached the OPs at Chandigarh and inquired about the less payment, where he was informed that due to the down fall in the market, less amount was paid to him. He was further informed by Ops that he would get Rs.1,140/- or more as and when the market position improve. It is stated that Ops are making the payment of Rs.810/- to the complainant per month till date and has not enhanced the amount to Rs.1,140/- as assured prior to the issuance of the policy. The complainant has filed an application on 29.08.2016 requesting the Ops to transfer the said amount of Rs.99,900/- into his saving account but his request was not accepted by OP No.1, who informed him that, as per product features, he was illegible of the surrender of the policy.  It is stated that the invested amount i.e. Rs.99,900/- was not refunded after the completion of three years. It is stated that the complainant’s house in his village is in dilapidated condition and thus, is in need of money. The complainant has raised the issue with OP No.3 vide complaint dated 10.09.2018 but to no avail. The complaint was lodged in the office of Insurance Ombudsman but his request was no accepted. It is alleged that the complainant was aged 68 years at the time of the issuance of the policy and thus, the SBI Life Insurance Policy was of no use to him. It is stated that the complainant has no source of income except the meager pension. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notices, the OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant; the complaint is time barred as the policy was issued in June 2014; the complaint filed by the complainant before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh was dismissed on 07.05.2019.

                On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has alleged mis-selling of the policy and had sought the refund of premium. It is submitted that the company has issued the SBI Life Annuity Plus policy bearing no.22001029701 with date of commencement as on 10.06.2014 with Single premium of Rs.99,901/-. It is submitted that the company has been paying monthly annuity instalments of Rs.810/- to the complainant from July 2014 till August 2019 and will continue to pay the same as per the terms and conditions of the policy. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he had an option to cancel the policy within the stipulated Free look period; thus, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, there is no provision to refund the premium after the expiry of free look period. The policy was issued as per the proposal form signed by the complainant. In life insurance contracts, the proposal form is the foundation of the contract. The OPs had received a proposal form bearing no.22170683 dated 03.06.2014 along with Initial proposal deposit of Rs.99,901/-; the proposer had opted for Option 1.1 Lifetime income.  Accordingly, a policy bearing no. 22001029701 was issued with date of commencement as on 10.06.2014 with single premium payment of Rs.99,901/-. It is stated that  the OPs have already  paid monthly annuity to the complainant  under the policy vide direct credit to his bank account no.6170000100006014 held with PUNJAB National Bank and will be paying in future as well. It is submitted that the OPs received request from the complainant for surrender of the policy but he was informed that he was not eligible for surrender, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the company had received complaint from the complainant vide letter dated 10.09.2018 and 15.11.2018 and the same were duly replied letter dated 29.07.2018 and 16.11.2018. It is specifically denied that it was assured that an amount of Rs.1140/- would be paid every month for three years and after completion of three years, he would get the invested amount. The annuity amount payable was clearly mentioned in the policy document and if he was not satisfied with the same, he could have cancelled the policy within free look option, which he did not do. After availing the benefits under the policy, demanding the refund of premium is not maintainable. The company has not assured any benefits other than what is mentioned in the policy document. It is submitted that there is no provisions in the terms and conditions of the policy for refund of the premium paid under the policy.  Rest of the allegations alleged by the complainant has been denied and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.Rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs No.1 to 3 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1/A along with documents as Annexure R-1/1 to R-1/8  and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant and OPs for OPs no.1 to 3 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the OPs, minutely and carefully.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments, reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as well as affidavit (Annexure C-A) of the complainant contended that the complainant was assured by the Op’s official at the time of issue of the policy in question that he would get monthly pension of Rs.1,140/- and that term of the policy would be three years, after which the invested sum amounting to Rs.99,900/- would be refunded to him. The learned counsel vehemently argued that the policy in question was sold to the complainant by making mis-represention qua the monthly pension as well as tenure of the policy. It is contended that the complainant being aged 68 years and retired Government official had no valid reason or justified cause to opt for the life insurance policy at such an old age and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contested the complaint, apart from merits, by raising preliminary objections that the District Consumer Commission at Panchkula lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. It is argued that the office of the Ops No.1 & 3 are located at Navi Mumbai and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                The above objection being  devoid of any merit is dismissed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           because the office of OP No.2 i.e. SBI life insurance Company Ltd. is situated in SCO No.131, First Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula.

                The learned counsel has raised the next objection that the complaint is time barred. Reliance has been placed upon the following case laws:-

1. Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.4962 of 2002(SC).

 

2. U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Brij Kishore Pandey & Anr. in Revision Petition No.3186 of 2009 decided on 09.10.2009.

 

                The said objection is also rejected because the complainant has been found to have been making representation against the issuance of the said policy vide his application dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure C-3), complaint dated 10.09.2018(Annexure C-5). The said complaint dated 10.09.2018(Annexure C-5) was acknowledged by the OPs vide letter dated 20.09.2018(Annexure C-6) assuring the complainant for early resolution of the complaint. Another complaint (Annexure C-7) was filed by the complainant against the issuance of policy in question, which was again acknowledged by OPs on 15.11.2018 (Annexure C-8) and finally, the matter was taken up by the Insurance Ombudsman, which was disposed of on 17.05.2019 and conveyed  to the complainant vide letter dated 28.05.2019(Annexure C-11). The present complaint was finally filed on 09.07.2019, therefore, the plea of time barred as taken by the learned counsel for the Ops is not tenable.

8.On merits, the learned counsel reiterated  the averments as made in the  written statement  and submitted that the SBI Life Annuity  Plus policy bearing no.22001029701 with the date of commencement  as 10.06.2014, with single premium of Rs.99,901/- was issued  on the basis of receipt of proposal form bearing no.22170683 dated 03.06.2014 from the complainant. It is contended that the complainant had opted, by making tick mark, against the option 1.1 life time income. The learned counsel argued that the OPs, as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question, are paying a sum of Rs. 810/- to the complainant and there is no deviation on the part of the Ops from the terms and conditions of the policy and thus, there was no mis-representation as alleged by the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant was at liberty to seek the cancellation of policy in question during the free look period of 15 days and thus, there is no merits in the present complaint.  Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous, meritless and baseless. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

i.        SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dr. M.A.Partha & Ors(Appeal no.732/2011)       (SCDRC, Bangalore).

 

ii.       Rajesh Choudhary Vs. Branch  Manager, SBI Life in F.A.No.2173/2010 (SCDRC,        M.P.)

9.We have perused the proposal form no.22170683(Annexure R-1/2), bearing the photo and signature of the complainant, and find that he had opted, by marking tick mark against the option 1.1 pertaining to life time income. The complainant, as per admitted factual position, had received the policy in question from Ops vide welcome letter dated 11.06.2014 along with First  Premium receipt, wherein the product/plan name was clearly mentioned as SBI Life-Plus Plan and option was mentioned as 1.1-life time  income. As per the insurance policy paper, the Annuity installment monthly is mentioned as Rs.810/-. Admittedly, the complainant has been receiving an amount of Rs.810/- per month from OPs since July 2014 till date.

10.The complainant’s allegations that he was assured the monthly income of Rs.1,140/- per month in place of Rs.810/- per month and that the tenure of the policy was three years, by Ops official at the time of selling of the policy to him, is not corroborated or substantiated by any documentary evidence. Not even a single documentary evidence showing the assurance by the Ops qua the payment on monthly pension of Rs.1,140/- per month as well as total tenure as three years, has been placed on record. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

11.The thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments, was that the complainant being a senior citizen having the age of 68 years at the time of selling of the policy in question to him, had no valid and justified reason to opt a life time insurance policy, wherein there was no provision for the refund of the invested amount after his death..

12.The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant is found having no merits in it because the complainant  had  himself opted for the policy in question, which was admittedly received by him from Ops vide welcome letter dated 11.06.2014. If the complainant had any grouse against the policy terms, he was at liberty to cancel the policy within the free look period but he did not prefer to cancel the same. In the policy terms and conditions, the monthly pension as Rs. 810/- is clearly mentioned. The complainant had retired from the O/o DGP Punjab and getting pension from the Department. The complainant has been receiving  a sum of Rs.810/- per month from the Ops for more than 9 years and thus, we find no legal infirmities  in the order dated 17.05.2019(Annexure R-1/1) passed by the insurance ombudsman whereby the complaint lodged by the complainant qua the policy in question was dismissed.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no force and substance in the version of the complainant; hence, the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 17.11.2023

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                         Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

 

CC.403 of 2019

Present:             Sh.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.    

                        Remaining arguments heard. Now, to come upon 17.11.2023 for orders.

Dt.06.11.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Sh.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs No.1 to 3.

                                                       

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 17.11.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President