Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 617.
Instituted on : 02.11.2017.
Decided on : 14.05.2019.
Raj Rani Ahluwalia daughter of Sh. Mangat Ram and wife of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, age 73 years, Resident of House No. 921/6, Kalalan Mohalla, Quilla Road, Rohtak. ………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Regional Director Office at SCO No. 109-110, Sector-17B, 3rd Floor, Chandigarh- 160017.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. H.C. Sikri, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the policy vide proposal No. 245484140 dated 12.03.2007 through the agent and the said proposal was duly received by the respondents on 17.03.2007. That as agreed/assured by the agent of the respondents, the complainant kept on making payment of the premium amount vide cheques bearing No.773081 dated 12.03.2007, 020691 dated 12.03.2008 & 020668 dated 28.03.2009 of Rs. 30,000/- each vide policy bearing No. 24017903703 with the date of commencement as 31.03.2007 and as such the complainant has deposited Rs. 90,000/- with the respondents. That the complainant moved a written complaint to the respondents on dated 19.01.2017 but no satisfactory reply to the complaint has ever been received by the complainant. That to the utmost dismay of the complainant an amount of Rs.32,482/- was credited in her account on 06.04.2017 and the same received by the complainant under protest. The complainant ought to have received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as assured by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant kept on approaching the officials of the respondents from time to time, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay balance agreed amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its accrual till realization of the amount and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in its reply submitted that the complainant had opted under point No. 4.1 Basic Plan details, the premium payment frequency as yearly, term of the policy as 10 years and sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus she had opted for payment of annual premium under the policy for 10 years and not three years as alleged by her. It is further submitted that three annual premium have been received under the policy i.e. the initial premium and two renewal premiums for the due date 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. The total premium amount received under the policy was Rs.90,000/-. It is further submitted that the policy matured on 31.03.2017 and an amount of Rs.32,482/- was credited to the account of the complainant held in SBI Bank on 06.04.2017. It is denied that the complainant ought to have obtained an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the policy. The opposite parties have paid the fund value as on the date of maturity of the policy to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite parties.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and has closed his evidence on dated 14.09.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence on dated 26.11.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the complainant, he purchased the policy of opposite party on the assurance of the agent of the opposite parties that the complainant had to pay the premium only for three years and will get amount of Rs.300000/- after ten years. Accordingly, he paid premium for three years @ Rs.30000/- p.a. and after 10 years, he contacted the opposite parties to get the insurance amount of Rs.300000/- but the opposite parties have only paid the amount of Rs.32482/- which was received under protest by the complainant. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that the maturity benefit equal to fund value has been paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that beside the maturity value, the complainant has also availed the valuable risk cover for the sum assured of Rs.300000/- for the premium paid by her under the policy for the period of three years for which the premium was paid.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that opposite parties have neither sent any letter to the complainant regarding lapse of policy after three years nor any intimation regarding highest fund value of the units purchased by the complainant in 10 years. Moreover, not terms and conditions were supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant. Had the complainant be aware of the policy terms and conditions, he should have applied for the refund of premium after 3 years but he waited for 10 years as assured by the agent of opposite parties and then only applied for payment of sum assured of Rs.300000/-. On the other hand, the opposite parties have used the amount of complainant for 10 years and has availed the benefit of interest on the alleged amount. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of amount deposited by him.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.90000/- deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties after deducting the already paid amount Rs.32482/- i.e. to pay Rs.57518/-(Rupees fifty seven thousand five hundred eighteen only) without any interest within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.05.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
