BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.974/2016

PRESENT:

SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER

                    SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Mr.Ponnusamy Venkatesan
S/o. Late Shri Ponnusamy,

Aged about 67 Years,

Residing at Venkat Cottage,

504/B, 12th Cross, 36th Main,

Ideal Homes Layout,

Rajarajeshwari Nagar,

•                              ……          COMPLAINANT

(Represented by M/s Keystone Partners, Adv)

V/s

SBI Life Insurance Company

A company incorporated under

the companies Act 1956,

Having its Registered and

Corporate Office at Natraj,

M.V. Road & Western Express

Highway junction Andheri East

Mumbai-400069.                                    ……OPPOSITE PARTY-1

Service Branch Office inter alia

No.21, 2nd Floor A.M.Elegance,

17th Cross Vijayanagar

Bengaluru Urban District

Bengaluru-560007

Rep. by its, authorized representative     ……OPPOSITE PARTY-2

(Opposite party No.1 & 2 represented by Sri. K.P.Thrimurty, Adv.,)

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

The present complaint is made U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 by the complainant with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.8,07.490/- towards balance of maturity value due to the complainant under the policy with opposite parties along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy till 02.07.2016 and other interest on the actual payment beyond 02.07.2016. Further the complainant prays for compensation and cost of the litigation.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under;

The counsel for complainant submits that the complainant had purchased the single premium insurance policy termed as “SBI LIFE UNIT PLUS-II SINGLE” with opposite parties on 02.07.2009 policy bearing No.25014663403 for Rs.5,01,000/-. Under the policy the complainant was assured basic benefit with a limited term of five years and basic sum assured was Rs.31,31,250/-. The said policy commenced on 02.07.2009 till 02.07.2014. Further the counsel for the complainant submits that as per the opposite party website the unit value of the insurance policy given was 15.1932 on the date of commencement and which grew to 22.0467 on the date of maturity of the said policy and the complainant was entitled to receive a maturity benefit of Rs.10,15, 735/- in the event of 6% growth and a maturity benefit of Rs.12,26,872/- in the event of 10% growth at the end of the term of the policy. The complainant received a letter on 25 August 2014 from the opposite parties in that letter they have informed the complainant that the maturity value payable to the complainant was a more  Rs.3,13,625/-. The complainant made several requests and also filed a complaint before the insurance ombudsman and the same is allowed but the complainant did not give his consent to the award. Further the counsel for the complainant claims that the opposite parties had misrepresented the policy by playing unfair trade practise and made the complainant to suffer mentally and financially and it amounts to deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint.

3. The counsel for opposite parties had filed their respective version along with documents and denied all the averments made by the complainant. The counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is only entitled as per the award by the insurance ombudsman. Further contend that the present complaint is not maintainable the same may be dismissed.                 

4. The complainant filed his affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and marked Ex.P1 to EX.P12. The opposite parties also filed their respective affidavits in the form of their evidence in chief.

5.  Heard the arguments.
6. Counsels for complainant and opposite parties have filed their respective written argument with citation.

7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i)  Whether the opposite parties followed the unfair trade practice?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought?

iii)  What order?

8.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 : In affirmative

Point No.3 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.4 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

        9.POINT NO.1 :- PW1 and RW1 and 2 had reiterated the facts of the case. The counsel for the complainant submits that the opposite parties have unilaterally deducted Ad-hoc and arbitrary charges from the total maturity benefit required to be paid by opposite parties to the complainant. Further submits that the opposite parties  had mislead the complainant and suppressed and not disclosed ‘Risk Premium Charges’, in the benefit illustration, chart now claiming there is a typographical error in the benefit illustration chart provided. The Allahabad High Court has held in Dr. Virendra Pal Kapoor versus union of India and others (2014 SCC online All 15648) that the terms of the SBI UNIT II PLUS policy amounts to unfair trade practise and has been held to be unconscionable. In the present complaint the policy is also same one and the opposite parties adopted the ‘unfair trade Practices’ and caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence, we answer point number one in affirmative.

        10. POINT NO.2 :- The counsel for complainant submits that opposite party is the renowned trusted banking and insurance company. At the time of insertion of the policy the agents of the opposite parties have promised a low-risk policy, suitable returns upon the maturity. The complainant deposited his hard earned money in the policy by trusting the opposite parties, the claims which the complainant is making is clearly mentioned in the benefit illustration chart of the policy at page No.29  and when we see the background of the complainant who is the retired Director of Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India. Opposite parties cannot claim the contention of complainant are false and created. For personal financial gains further opposite parties counsel contented that they are ready to give the amount as per the order of the insurance ombudsman but the complainant didn't give his acceptance to the said order the counsel for opposite party contended that the complainant can’t file a complaint before this commission. The Hon'ble NCDRC is Kamaleshwari Prasad Singh V/s National Insurance Company Ltd., it is held that the award of the ombudsman is not binding on the complaint and is subject to adjudication by the consumer commission constituted Under the CP Act. On perusal of the policy and it is clear that the complainant is claiming the maturity benefits as shown in the benefits illustration chart, know opposite parties is claiming that is typographical error and the claim is imaginary one. In support of it the counsel for complainant has produced a case law 2014 SCC Online All 15648 : (2014) 105 ALR 76 : (2014) 141 AIC 922 in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow in this it is held that the SBI life Unit Plus II-Single , it was an unconscionable contract and was thus arbitrary, illegal and void document. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority is directed to re-examine each and every policy, even if it has been approved by it, and to bring all such policies offered by SBI Life in terms with its guidelines. We observe and consider the complainant not only as a “consumer” but also as a “vulnerable consumer” as the complainant is a senior citizen had gone through a lot of suffering and hardship by the acts of opposite parties it amounts to deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties hence we answer point number two in affirmative.

        11. POINT NO.3 :- The counsel for the complainant make a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the maturity value of Rs.8,07,490/-with 18% interest p.a. from the date of maturity of the policy till 02.07.2016. The complainant is entitled for the entire premium amount paid on the policy of Rs.5,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of payment of premium of the said policy till realisation. The complainant is also entitled to pay Punitive Damages of Rs.50,000/- as the opposite parties being the reputed banking and insurance company had issued such a void document as held by the Allahabad High Court and such as negligent Act, caused financial n mental damages to the public at large including complaint.  Further the complainant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/-towards cost of the litigation.  Hence, we answer point number three partly in affirmative.

        12. POINT NO.3 :-In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.5,01,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of payment of the said premium of the policy till realisation.

The complainant is entitled to Punitive Damages of Rs.50,000/-.                        

Further opposite parties directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/-  towards litigation charges to the complainant.

Opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of order in case opposite parties fails to comply as stated, the above said amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand Only) carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

     Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 25^th day of AUGUST, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)   (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri. Ponnusamy Venkatesan, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy.

2. Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party, dt.03.07.2014.

3. Copy of the letter of opposite party to complainant dt.25.08.2016.

4. Copy of complaint dt.24.01.2015 from the complainant to the Opposite party.

5. Copy of the letter dt.25.01.2015 from the Opposite party to the Secretary.

6. Copy of the letter dt.29.05.2015 along with the award passed by the insurance ombudsman sent to complainant.

7. Copy of the letter dt.29.06.2015 from opposite party to complainant.

8. Copy of Emails communications sent by complainant to the opposite party.

9. Copy of Emails communications from opposite party to complainant.

10. Copy of Emails communication sent by complainant to opposite party.

11. Copy of the letter to the secretary.

12. Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Sri. M.Nagaraj, Manager of opposite party No.1 has filed his affidavit.

Sri.Prabhakar Rao, Deputy General Manager of opposite party No.3 & 5 has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of the proposal form.

2. Copy of the Policy document.

3. Copy of the Unit Statement.

4. Copy of the payment letter dt.25.08.2014.

5. Copy compliant letter dt.03.07.2014

6. Copy of the reply dt14.08.2016.

7. Copy of the clarification letter dt.16.06.2015.

8. Copy of the email dt.23.06.2015.

9. Copies of the email communication letter dt.29.06.2015.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•