District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.569/2021.
Date of Institution: 02.11.2021.
Date of Order: 13.02.2023.
Sube Singh aged about 67 years son of late Shri Kishan Lal, resident of House No. 1140, Sector-8, Faridabad, District Frdabad. Aadhaar card No. 305578026846 Mobile No. 9811538457.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, 2nd floor, 112, Darya Nand Road, SBI Building, Near Golcha Cinema, Darya Ganj, New Delhi – 110 002 through its Regional Directors/Principal Officers.
2nd address:
SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Near Hotel Delite Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad, District Faridabad.
3rd address:
SBI Life Insurance company Limited, 3rd floor Parsvnath Metro Tower, Shahadara Metro Station. Shahadara, East Delhi – 110 032.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person with counsel Shri Surender Singh.
Sh. Rajiv Chaudhary, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant obtained SBI Life Insurance Policy from the opposite party bearing No. 44060909806 valid from 21.08.2013 to 20.08.2018 for insured amount of Rs.9,99,000/- approximately. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said insurance policy, the complainant was to pay installments @ Rs.99,900/- per annum and the said amount was given by the complainant to the opposite party continuously upto five years i.e. upto the year 2018 and in this way the complainant paid to the opposite parties total amount of Rs.4,99,500/-. As such the opposite parties were to make double of the said amount at the time of maturity. At the time of maturity, the opposite parties did not make the payment of said amount to the complainant, because the opposite parties gave only rs.4,52,225/- on 01.09.2021 i.e. after a lapse of eight years, leaving the balance amount of Rs.47,275/- as unpaid out of the total deposited amount by the opposite party to the complainant. Besides this the opposite parties were to pay double of the insured amount to the complainant i.e. Rs.9,99,000/-, but they did not make the payment of said double amount to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 15.09.2021 (posted on 16.089.2021) to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay an amount of Rs. 5,47,275/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due i.e.01.09.2021 till realization of whole amount.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the policy number 44060909806 was issued in October 2013 and the complainant raised dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the policy in2021 i.e. after the gap of more than 8 years, However, the limitation period prescribed under Consumer Protection Act was two years from the date of cause of action. The present complaint was regarding less amount received on maturity under the policy NO. 44060909806 and the complainant was demanding Rs.5,47,275/- alongwith interest @ 24% towards the maturity value under the policy. However, in the instant case, the maturity value of Rs.4,52,224/- had been paid to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy which was just and legal. It was submitted that the terms and conditions of the policy, which were duly approved by the IRDAI, did not offer the maturity benefit as demanded by the complainant and the answering opposite party had not assured for any such payment to the complainant. The payment of maturity benefits was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of the due date of maturity benefit under the policy. Apart from the maturity value, the complainant was also insured for a risk cover for basic sum assured of Rs.9,99,000/-. He had enjoyed the risk cover since 21.10.2013 till 31.08.2021 i.e period for which he paid the premium. Hence, demand of the complainant was baseless and hence there was no cause to file present complaint before the Commission. It was submitted that the answering opposite party issued the policy based on the details furnished in the proposal form submitted by the complainant. The benefits payable were stated in the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant. The complainant had not raised any issues regarding the terms and conditions of the policy during the free look period and continued with the policy. Both the insured and the insurer were bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and the policy terms and conditions did not have provision for the payment of more amount towards maturity benefit as demanded by the complainant. Hence, the demand of the complainant was outside the scope of the policy terms and conditions which were duly approved by the IRDAI. The maturity value paid under the policy was as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– SBI Life Insurance Company Limited with the prayer to: a) pay an amount of Rs. 5,47,275/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due i.e.01.09.2021 till realization of whole amount. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sube Singh, Ex.C-1 – proposal form, Ex.C-2 – policy document, Ex.C-3 – letter dated 25.10.2013 alongwith first premium receipt,, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex. C-5 – reply to legal notice.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Ms. Dhanya KP W/o Shri Unnikrishnan K.P. having office at F Wing, 8th floor, Seawood Grand Central, Plot no. R-1, Sector-40, Seawoods, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Ex.R-1 – Proposal Form, Ex.R-2 – letter dated 25.10.2013 alongwith First premium receipt, Ex.R-3 – Maturity Payment Letter,, Ex.R-4 – Transaction Cum Unit Statement, Ex.R-5 – legal notice, Ex.R-6- reply to legal notice.
6. In this case, the policy number 44060909806 was issued in October 2013 and the complainant raised dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the policy in 2021 i.e. after the gap of more than 8 years, The present complaint was regarding less amount received on maturity under the policy No. 44060909806 and the complainant was demanding Rs.5,47,275/- alongwith interest @ 24% towards the maturity value under the policy. However, in the instant case, the maturity value of Rs.4,52,224/- had been paid to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy vide maturity payment letter dated 07.09.2021 vide Ex.R3. Apart from the maturity value, the complainant was also insured for a risk cover for basic sum assured of Rs.9,99,000/-. He had enjoyed the risk cover since 21.10.2013 till 31.08.2021 i.e period for which he paid the premium.
7. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 13.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
