Haryana

Panchkula

CC/242/2015

NEHA SHOREE. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI LIFE INSURANCE. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

15 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	242 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	02.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	15.03.2016

 

Ms.Neha Shoree d/o Capt. Kailash Kumar Shoree, R/o H.No.267, Sector 12, Panchkula-134112 (Haryana).

 

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Registered and Corporate Office, Natraj, M.G. Road and Western Express High Way Junction, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069 through its Director.
2. Regional Director, SBI Life Insurance, SCO 109-110, 3^rd floor, Sec-17-C, Chandigarh.
3. Branch Manager, Serving Branch, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.
4. Umesh Bali (Agent) of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula, Haryana-134109.

 

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

 

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

 

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for Ops No.1 to 3.

OP No.4 exparte.

 

 

ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The averments made by the complainant are as under. In pursuance of a mutual deliberation, OPs No.3 and 4 issued a single premium policy against which the former (i.e.the complainant herein) was required to make payment of one premium only. Lock-in-period for the policy was three years from the date of commencement; while the complainant/insured was entitled to maturity value of the policy on the commencement of the fourth policy year. The surrender charges were to be Nil from the commencement of 6^th policy year onwards “irrespective of the product whether it is single premium policy or with the annual frequency i.e. regular premium payment plan etc.”. The complainant was further assured that “there will not be any kind of taxation at any stage”. On that assurance, the complainant paid a single premium of Rs.5 lacs against the policy. On deliverance of the policy documentation (No.38007532607), the complainant “placed the same in the safe place in her house without having a glance at the policy document”. The further averment is that the complainant was not told by the OPs at any point of time that there was an outer limit for the free look period. That policy was converted for investment in Government Securities “through bond fund” on 28.10.2011 and “the policy no longer remained Unit Linked Policy”. The policy conversion “from unit linked plan to Govt. Securities bond fund was done by OPs after submission of the request form by the complainant.

Inspite of the fact narrated in the course of the preceding paras, the OPs issued a policy wherein the complainant was required “to pay heavy amounts of premium on regular basis” inspite of their being in the know of the “low source of regular income of the complainant” and further also being in the know of the fact that “the complainant is not capable to pay heavy amounts of premium on regular annual basis”.

After the lock-in-period of three years was over, a total amount of Rs.5,56,425/- was refunded and credited into the Bank account of the complainant on 11.10.2013 “after illegally deducting presumably 2% surrender charges and 12.36% Service Tax without providing any statement of fund value and the deductions made”.

2. The pure and simple allegation of the complainant is that the OPs had thereby “indulged in unfair trade practices” and had also committed act of deficiency in services. The further allegation is that by making a deduction purportedly on the premise of surrender charges of the policy, the OPs had also violated the maximum absolute cap provided by the new IRDA regulations “issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority”. It was also averred that no discontinuation charges were to be “imposed in the case of one time premium payment policies and top ups”. Reliance, in support of the averment with regard to the IRDA regulations, was placed upon a judgment dated 10.01.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Forum, Mohali in case titled Nirmal Singh Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited and others (Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2010). A copy of that judgment was placed on record as Annexure C-5.
3. The contesting OPs No.1 to 3 denied the allegations made by the complainant and averred the legitimacy of the deduction of surrender charges which were indicated in the terms and conditions of the impugned documentation.The complaint was averred to be barred by limitation too.
4. Ex-parte proceeding were ordered against OP No.4 vide order dated 11.12.2015 as none appeared on its behalf inspite of service through registered post. The service was presumed to have been duly effected as the notice had been correctly addressed and was not returned by the postal authorities even after a period of 30 days was over.
5. Affidavit Annexure CA, alongwith documentation Annexure C1 to C6, were tendered into evidence on behalf of the complainant; while affidavits Annexure RA and RB were tendered into evidence alongwith documentation Annexure R1 to R8 on behalf of the contesting OPs.
6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the file.
7. We must, at the very outset, record the reasons for discarding the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the OPs. That there is delay in the filing of the complaint is not controverted on behalf of the complainant. However, it cannot be ignored from consideration that the complainant did file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in the filing of the complaint. The averments in the course of the application were duly supported by an affidavit filed by the complainant. As noticed in the course of order dated 04.11.2015, notice of the application for condonation of delay was issued to the OPs. However, a perusal of the file indicates that the contesting OPs did not file a reply thereto, much less supported by an affidavit in rebuttal of the averments made by the complainant. We have, thus, no hesitation in holding that the complaint is within time.
8. Insofaras the applicability of IRDA regulations to the case in hand is concerned, it cannot be questioned for the very reasoning recorded by the Mohali Forum. While relying upon those observations, we are not unmindful of the fact that the Mohali Forum is not superior to this Forum whose verdict would be binding upon the Panchkula Forum. Nonetheless, we reiterate that the reasoning adopted therein by the Mohali Forum is well reasoned and we have not hesitation in adopting it.
9. Insofaras the deduction of surrender charges is concerned, the complainant is estopped from challenging the issue in terms of law inasmuchas it was she only who had made a request therefor. A precise averment to that effect was made by the contesting OPs in the course of Para 8 of the Written Statement. The complainant did not opt to file a replication to controvert that averment. That being so, the complainant cannot be heard to make a grievance of the deduction of surrender charges which came about on her own request.
10. The complainant cannot validly wriggle out of the contents of a documented transaction when it is not her plea that an opportunity to go through the contents thereof had been denied to her or that she is not familiar with the language in which the documentation is worded. The law would not validate a plea by a party that it is not governed by the documented terms and conditions because it opted to put it at a safe place without caring to go through the contents thereof.
11. Nonetheless, the IRDA regulations do provide for the cap on deductions which can be made in the context. The position that, thus, emerges is that while the deduction of surrender charges cannot be questioned on point of principle by the complainant, the contesting OPs too cannot wriggle out of governance by the IRDA regulations which may have come up later than the effectuation of the impugned transaction but the occasion for the applicability thereof arose only after the implementation thereof. Even otherwise, the establishment ought not to ideally contest a claim of this type on a technical view particularly when it is based upon a benevolent legislation like the Consumer Protection Act.
12. We would, accordingly, allow this complaint and order that: -

1. The contesting OPs shall restrict the deduction of surrender charges only to the extent of the capped extent under the IRDA regulations and refund the excess amount of deduction to the complainant, with interest @ 9%;
2. The contesting OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to the excess deduction; and
3. The contesting OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

 

The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to them comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint.

 

Announced

15.03.2016         S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                           MEMBER          MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

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

 

    

                                 

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER