Haryana

Panchkula

CC/76/2015

H.C GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI LIFE INSURANCE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

07 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.         

                                                           

Consumer Complaint No	:	76 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	23.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	07.08.2015

 

H.C. Gupta son of Shri Ram Kishan Gupta, Flat No. 2D Block-7, Rail Vihar MDC, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1. Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2^nd Floor, SCO-304, Sector-9, Panchkula.
2. The Regional Director, Chandigarh Region, SBI Life Insurance, SCO 109-110, Sec-17-B, 3^rd Floor Chandigarh.
3. Client Relationship, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Central Processing Centre, Kapas Bhavan, Sector-10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.

                                                                                           ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:                    Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Complainant in person.

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. H.C. Gupta-complainant has filed the complaint against the Ops with the averments that he had invested Rs. 50,000/- by way of purchase of policy No. 56069846004 to get some benefit being SBI Life Insurance in the month of December, 2013 but the policy document had not been received by the complainant till date and computer generated account statement dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure C-I) was received showing an amount of Rs. 28,945/- as closing balance against Rs. 50,000/-.  The complainant was shocked with the above statement and requested vide letter dated 18.10.2014 (Annexure C-2) asking them as to why the amount was deducted on account of contribution charges and life cover charges as the same was not explained to him by the agent at the time of offering policy. The matter was not heard by the Ops.  After that again a letter dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure C-3) was written for closer of policy and refund of the said amount. The complainant received a communication dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure C-4) by OP no.1 stating that the matter would be resolved within 15 days. After that complainant again received a letter dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure C-5), which was suitably replied by the complainant  vide Annexure C-6 repeating the same request and OP no. 3 replied on 07.03.2015 (Annexure C-7) assuring the complainant that the matter would be sought out within 15 days.  The complainant was surprised when he received letter dated 18.03.2015 (Annexure C-8) rejecting the request of the complainant for cancellation of policy and refund of amount rather they requested to apply for duplicate policy document. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections.  It is submitted that the Ops no. 2 & 3 is at Chandigarh and Navi Mumbai respectively while the case is filed at Panchkula,  hence the Hon’ble Forum may dismiss the complaint against the Ops no. 2 & 3 for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Ho’ble National Commission while disposing of the First Appeal No. 428 of 2008 (in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Gupta & Others) in their order dated 03.09.2013 clearly laid down the rules for determining the territorial jurisdiction.  The ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the instant case.  It is submitted that the policy was issued with date of commencement as 31.12.2013.  The Ops have dispatched the original policy document at the registered address of the complainant on 14.01.2014 by Speed Post vide POD No. EA1061206981N and the same were not returned undelivered at the office of the Ops.  The Policy document was sent through speed post, a government agency and accepted mode of communication.  Hence, it was presumed that the same must have been received by the policy holder.  The complainant was silent till October 2014 and had never raised any objection regarding the non receipt of the policy document for more than 10 months.  Any prudent person will not keep quiet for more than 10 months after investing the huge amount of Rs. 50,000/-.  The complainant should have immediately approached the Ops in the month of January 2010, if ever the policy document was not received by him.    It is submitted that the complainant does not come within the purview of Section 2 (1) (b) and the complaint does not come within the ambit of Setion 2 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence deserves to be dismissed in limine.  It is submitted that in view of what is stated above supra, no deficiency in service can be alleged in terms of Section 2 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the present complaint does not come within the meaning of Consumer Dispute under Section 2 (1) (e) of the said Act & hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is submitted that the Ops vide letter dated 21.10.2014 informed the complainant that the policy cannot be cancelled after expiry of the free lock period.  It is submitted that the product feature of the policy are duly approved by the IRDA and the Ops have acted strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that the policy document is evidence of the insurance contract and Ops have deducted the charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that if the complainant was not agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have cancelled the policy under free look period and continued the policy.  It is submitted that the complainant has enjoyed the insurance cover under the policy for the period he had paid the premium.  It is submitted that if any unfortunate event had happened, the Ops would have paid the sum assured to the nominee/legal heirs of the complainant.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In support of his case, complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Ops has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard complainant and counsel for Ops and have carefully gone through the record including the pleadings of the parties and the documentation tendered into evidence by them.
5. The Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of OPs, argued at the very outset for the ouster of jurisdiction of this Forum by indicating that no part of cause of action had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Panchkula.
6. The plea was contested by the complainant who argued that he is based at Panchkula and it was from here only that the relevant cheque was issued, the communications in the relevant behalf addressed and the replies thereto received from the OPs. That being so, the argument proceeded on behalf of the complainant, this Forum has the plenary jurisdiction to try the complaint.
7. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the contention hawked on behalf of the OPs. The reasons therefor are very simple. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the complainant is a resident of Panchkula. It was from here only that he inter-acted with the OPs to obtain the relevant policy documentation. Further, it was from within the territorial jurisdiction of Panchkula that the correspondence was exchanged between the complainant and the OPs. We do not, thus, buy the argument that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance of the complainant.
8. However, the acceptance of the plea made by the complainant on point of jurisdiction does not enable into succeed on merits. The present is a pure and simple case wherein, on the own showing of the complainant, he made a grievance about the non-receipt of the policy documentation (No.56069846004), for the first time, after the lapse of period of about 10 months (vide letter dated 18.10.2014). The commencement of the policy transaction was w.e.f. 31.12.2013. The original policy documentation was dispatched at the registered address of the complainant on 14.01.2014, by Speed-post (POD No.EA106120698 IN) and the same has not been returned to the sender till date. The Speed-post is handled by a Governmental instrumentality. If a documentation is not delivered, it would naturally be returned to the sender. It is not even the plea of the complainant that the address recorded on the Speed-post is not in accord with his registered address. The presumption, thus, is that a communication addressed at the correct address had been delivered.
9. Further, it is the plea made on behalf of the OPs that the non-grant of the request made by the complainant is in accord with the documented terms and conditions of the impugned transaction. The complainant has not invited our attention to any fact or law which would enable him to controvert the above factual averment. The present is not a case between two private parties. The OPs are different facets of a Governmental Banking instrumentality. By the very nature of things, a Governmental Institution would not make any profit which would go to personal coffers, by unnecessarily resisting the grant of even a valid claim. The Free Look Period of the policy too is over. The complainant did not challenge the validity of the documented terms and conditions of the impugned policy transaction within that period which is, in fact, meant for the benefit of the policy holder and he is entitled to raise whatever grievance he has during that duration. The complainant not only did not make any grievance in the context within the Free Look Period but also enjoyed tranquilised placidity for as long as about 10 months before making a grievance for the first time. Law would not favour such a litigant who neither availed of the Free Look Period duration nor did he make the grievance even within a reasonable time thereafter. That is reflective of the want of bonafides on the part of the complainant.
10. We have, thus, no hesitation in non-suiting the complaint and we hereby dismiss the complaint.
11. The parties shall bear their own costs of the cause in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint.

 

 

ANNOUNCED

07.08.2015                            ANITA KAPOOR                 DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 

 

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

 

     

                                         

                                                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                                            MEMBER