Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/863/2010

Kanwal Kumar S/o Brij Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

J.K.Gupta

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.863 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 17.09.2010

                                                                                    Date of decision:25.07.2016

Kanwal Kumar Sharma aged about 66 years son of Shri Brij Lal  Sharma, resident of House No. 538, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. SBI Life Insurance, State Bank of India Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai through its Managing Director.
2. SBI Life Insurance, SCO 109-110, Ist Floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. SBI Life Insurance, 2^nd Floor, UCO Bank Building, Piara Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.  

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. J.K.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Kanwal Kumar Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the last week of April, 2007 Ms. Akashdeep Kaur agent of OPs approached the complainant and asked to invest money in SBI Life Insurance and she proposed various plans and handsome incentive and benefits thereon and on the allurements and representation of agent, complainant purchased Unit Plus-II Regular policy and he handed over a DD of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of SBI Life on 01.05.2007 to the agent of SBI Life. On 04.05.2007, the complainant received a letter from OPs Company pertaining to the policy/proposal No.24021225907/245945073 wherein it was mentioned that the premium under the said unit scheme is Rs. 50,000/- per year for three years. The complainant was astonished to know as it was in contravention to the assertion of the agent. He wrote a letter on 24.05.2007 to the OP no.1 & 2 to send him the terms and conditions of the said unit plus-II. When the above irregularity came to light and he stood himself duped, he applied for cancellation of the unit on 14.05.2008 but the OPs sent an evasive reply on 03.06.2008 that if the complainant does not pay the subsequent two premiums, the risk cover will be lapsed but the amount can be withdrawn after three years and they gave no response about the return of the money of complainant inspite of repeated visits to OP No.3. To utter surprise, the complainant received a cheque of Rs. 32477.10 against the investment of Rs. 50000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant sent objections dated 06.07.2010 to OPs No.1 & 2 through UPC to the effect that the complainant is entitled to refund of his total amount of Rs. 50000/- with incentive and benefits but the OPs gave an evasive reply dated 16.07.2010 alleging that the said amount to be the surrender value which is totally wrong and illegal. The act of the OPs as well as its agent was a fraudulent, dishonest and malafide and the complainant stands defrauded by the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is barred by limitation under section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The policy was issued in May, 2007 and the present complaint has been filed after a gap of more than 3 years. Section 24-A prescribes a limitation period of 2 years. It has been further alleged that the Crux of the complaint is against Ms. Akashdeep Kaur. The OPs are not liable because what has transpired between the agent and the complainant is not within the knowledge of the OPs. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable for the misjoinder of OPs and should be dismissed in limine. It has been submitted that the proposal form is the basis of assessment of risk of the proposer and the policy will be issued based on the proposal form. A person who signs a document is totally responsible for the contents contained in the document and he cannot plead ignorance of the same. The OPs cannot be made liable if the policy is issued as per the options exercised by the complainant. If the complainant feels cheated by some persons, he should prefer a detailed civil litigation against the concerned and such complaints are outside the scope of this Forum. The insurer cannot be made liable for the unauthorized actions of any third party, whoever it is. Even in a strict principal- Agent relationship, the Principal cannot be held liable for the unauthorized actions of the agents. Basically, it is the IRDA which grants licenses to the agents and not the insurer. The term agent is used conventionally in insurance industry only to denote that he is entitled to canvass insurance business. The said agent does not have express or implied authority to bind the insurer by his actions. Hence, it any agent does any mischief, he alone should be made liable for such acts.   It has been submitted that the OPs are not responsible for the acts of commission or omission on the part of any third persons. The OPs have issued the policy based on the proposal form duly signed and submitted by the complainant. The allegations made in the complaint require a thorough investigation and examination and cross examination of witnesses which are beyond the purview of Hon’ble District Forum. Only civil Courts are competent to handle such cases because the proceedings before a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum are summary in nature.  The claimant should have filed a suit and in a regular proceeding the matter could be gone into. The OPs have issued the policy based on the proposal form duly filled and signed by the complainant. The complainant did not raise any issue regarding the terms and conditions of the policy during the free look period. If the complainant feels cheated by the agent/ third parties, he should have initiated separate proceedings against the agent/ third parties and the complainant should not have dragged the OPs to the litigation. The OPs Life Insurance Company has acted as per the proposal form duly filled and signed by the complainant and based on that, the policy was issued on the ground of UTMOST GOOD FAITH. The complainant had submitted a proposal No. 245945073 dated 01.05.2007 for Unit Plus II Regular Plan of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for a term of 5 years opting for annual mode of payment of premium by paying the initial proposal deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. On receipt said proposal and based on the information provided in the proposal form, a policy No. 24021225907 with date of commencement as 31.05.2007 was issued to the complainant. The premium payable was Rs. 50,000/- annually. The complainant clearly marked the mode of payment of premium as yearly under Question No.4.1 of the proposal form and the term of the plan was indicated as 5 years. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has failed to pay renewal premium due on 31.05.2008 and onwards, hence the risk cover automatically lapsed and mortality charges were not deducted after the grace period of one month i.e. 30.06.2008. It has been submitted that the OPs have received the surrender request from the complainant alongwith original policy bond on 01.06.2010. As per clause No.1 of Policy terms and conditions under the caption surrender “The surrender value will be equal to the Fund Value after deducting applicable surrender charges”, accordingly the surrender value of Rs. 32477/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque No. 616703 dated 09.06.2010.   It has been specifically submitted that the Ops have not received the Free Look Cancellation request within the stipulated time alongwith the original policy document. Mere allegation against the company without supportive evidence does not shift the burden of proof to the company. It has been further submitted that the proposal form is the basis of the contract of insurance. In the present case, the complainant did not exercise this option and continued the policy which means he has agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. In parawise reply reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections as well as on merit and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his complaint, complainant filed his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of letter dated 03.06.2008 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of letter dated 06.07.2010 as Annexure C-2, Certificate of posting as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of certificate of posting dated 19.08.2010 as Annexure C-4, Acknowledgement of Rs. 50,000/- as Annexure C-5, Certificate of posting as Annexure C-6, Receipt dated 14.05.2008 for cancellation of policy as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of proposal deposit receipt as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of letter dated 10.06.2010 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of letter dated 25.05.2007 as Annexure C-10 Photo copy of letter dated 15.05.2007 as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of letter dated 06.07.2010 as Annexure C-12, Photo copy of letter dated 16.07.2010 regarding surrender value as Annexure C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of V.Srinivas Head Legal SBI Life Insurance as Annexure RX and documents such as Photo copy of proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter dated 02.06.2007 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of transaction cum unit statement as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of letter dated 01.06.2010 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 11.06.2010 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of letter dated 19.06.2010 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of letter dated 06.07.2010 as Annexure R-7, Photo copy of Civil Appeal No. 2067 of 2002 decided on 20.03.2009 as Annexure R-8, Photo copy of revision petition No. 2945 of 2010 decided on 05.10.2010 as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of judgment dated 07.02.1966 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as Annexure R-10,  Photo copy of revision petition No.211 of 2009 (NC.) decided on 02.02.2010 as Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant invested the money of Rs. 50,000/- in the SBI Life Unit Plus II Plan regular policy bearing No. 24021225907/245945073 in the month of May 2007. It is also not disputed that the complainant surrendered the policy in question on 14.05.2008 which is duly evident from the letter (Annexure C-7) and the OPs Insurance Company made the payment of Rs. 32477.10 vide cheque bearing No. 616073 dated 09.06.2010 drawn at SBI Bank as full and final settlement of all the dues after the lock in period of 3 years which is duly evident from the letter Annexure C-9. It is also not disputed that the complainant raised objection against the less payment and sent the letters through UPC which is evident from the postal receipt Annexure C-3 and C-4 and filed this complaint after 3 months from the receipt of surrender value of Rs. 32477.10 from the insurance company.

8.                     From the perusal of photo copy of insurance policy in question (Annexure R-2) and letter dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure C-13) in respect of the insurance policy bearing No. 24021225907/245945073, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through Unit Plus II Plan.  It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Narinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed

9.                     Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. So, it cannot be said that policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. Learned counsel for the Ops draw out attention towards the terms and conditions of the policy in question Annexure R-2 in which it has been specifically mentioned that all unit linked insurance policies will have a lock-in period of 5 years and referred the case law titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium and also referred the case law titled as Resham Devi Versus The New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Others, 2014(3) CLT Page 328.  Further referred the case law titled as Avtar Singh Dhillon Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, III (2012) CPJ page 133, Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, III (2013) CPJ page 203 (NC).

10.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has surrendered his policy and had already received the amount of Rs. 32477/- which is evident from the letter Annexure C-9 and further in view of the proposition of law referred above, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Insurance Company. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, hence we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 25.07.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.