Date of filing:  15.02.2017                                                                   Date of disposal:  02.02. 2018

Complainant:             Modhusudan Dutta, S/o. Late Krishnapada Dutta, resident of Baragopinathpur, Post Office: Torkona, Police Station: Khandaghosh, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 423.

• V E R S U S  -

Opposite Party:         1. SBI LIFE INSURANCE, BURDWAN BRANCH, represented by its Branch Manager, having its office at SBI Administrative Office, 3^rd Floor, Hawker’s Market, Near Curzon Gate, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.

Proforma Opposite Party: 2. State Bank of India, Seherabazar Branch, represented by its Manager, having its office at Seherabazar, PO: Seherabazar, PS: Raina, District: Burdwan.  

Present:

Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).

Hon’ble Member:   Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.

Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.

Appeared for the Complainant:                                      Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2:                       None (ex parte).

Appeared for the Proforma  Opposite Party No. 2:    Ld. Advocate, Soham Som.

J u d g e m e n t

            The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had obtained an insurance policy being No. 3302247208 issued by the OP No. 1 which had been commenced on and from 25.11.2009 and was to have been matured on 01.03.2009 under certain terms and conditions. As per terms of the policy an amount of Rs. 50,000=00 was to be paid by the policy holder annually. It is stated by the complainant that he had paid the premium amount twice for the year 2009 & 2010 i.e. Rs. 50,000=00 for each year. The complainant has further stated that due to   financial stringencies he became unable to pay further amount towards premium since 2011 and as such the said policy was treated by the OP as “lapsed policy”.     It is further stated    by  the complainant that after completion  of three (3) years, the complainant had started requesting for refund of the deposited amount of   Rs. 1,00,000=00  towards premiu but  the OP-1 was found very much reluctant refund the said amount                                                                                                                                initially although  sent  a  letter     dated 02.9.2016 to the complainant subsequently I intimating “net refund amount is     Rs. 33,963.7” and also intimated  that the amount was assessed as well as fixed as per  terms and  conditions of    the said policy. The complainant being surprised regarding the meager refundable amount rushed to the OP No. 1 to provide copy of     terms and conditions to him but the OP No. 1 turned a deaf ear to that request. The complainant also stated that he learnt that OP-1 had deposited the said amount to loan account lying with the OP-2 and therefore the OP-2 kept the policy document including the terms and conditions with them. In this connection the complainant has mentioned that he had obtained another policy being No. 44025326601 issued by the OP-1 and deposited a yearly premium of Rs. 50,000=00 with the OP-1 and thereafter did not deposit any further amount for which the said policy became lapsed and being asked by the complainant the OP-1 refunded an amount of Rs. 49,687.19. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 65,371=00 holding them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, to pay interest @12% per annum to be accrued from the date of first premium till realization thereof, to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000=00 towards compensation and cost of litigation.

Notices were served upon the Ops but the OP-1 did not turn up vide order being no. 16, dated 05.9.2017 the case proceeded ex parte against OP-1.

The proforma OP-2 filed written objection denying and disputing the allegations paragraph wise as made out in the petition of complaint and also stated that since the loan account of the complainant lying with them had been closed long days ago no policy documents covering insured complainant is lying with them as the same has already been returned to the complainant.

On prayer of the complainant the petition of complaint is treated as evidence of affidavit adduced on behalf of him and on prayer of the proforma OP his written objection was also treated as his evidence.

In course of hearing ld. Lawyer for the complainant has narrated the facts as stated in the petition of complainant. The OP-2 filed written argument.

In support of his contention the complainant has annexed.

1. Photocopy of Regular Unit Allocation statement dated 30.3.2011,
2. Photocopy of Unpaid Premium intimation dated 27.12.2011,
3. Photocopy of Unpaid Premium intimation dated 28.12.2010,
4. Photocopy of Renewal Premium intimation date 04.10.2011,
5. Photocopy of Letter of OP-1 dated op. 09.2016 regarding refund amount (due to lapsed status),
6. Photocopy of Policy deposit receipt dated 28.02.2011,
7. Photocopy of Transaction/unit statement for the period from 25.11.2009 to 24.11.2010,
8. Photocopy of Transaction/unit statement for the period from 25.11.2010 to 24.11.2011,

12-13. Photocopy of Letter of complainant dated 03.11.2016 to OP-1 with postal receipt,

15. Photocopy of Statement of Accounts as on 15.07.2014,

17-18. Photocopy of SB Passbook showing transaction.

Decision with reasons:-

The complainant obtained insurance policy issued by the OP-1 insured under certain terms and conditions. It is stated by the complainant that he had defaulted in paying 3^rd and words premium in respect of the said policy being No. 3302204720 and the insurer vide letter dated 02.9.2016 in reply to his letter dated 25.5.2016 intimated him that his policy had already been lapsed in 2011 and as on date the refundable amount was Rs. 33,963.7. The complainant reiterated that he had deposited Rs. 1, 00,000=00 towards premium for two years and therefore the refundable amount could not be of such meager figure. The complainant demanded for refund of the entire amount he deposited towards premium but did not file any document before us where from it would have been evident that the basis of this demand was admissible. In fact the complainant failed to file any copy of policy documents before us. The complainant stated that the policy documents was lying with the OP-2 but the OP-2 by adducing evidence has slated that after liquidation of a loan obtained by the complainant from the OP-2, the loan account had been closed and the policy documents were returned to the complainant. The complainant did not challenge the version by cross-examination of the OP-2. It is observed that the onus has not been discharged and as such the complainant does not succeed to substantiate hid claim.

In the result the complaint fails.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

that the Consumer Complaint being No. 28/2017 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the OP-1 and on contest against the OP-2 but without costs.

Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me:                                                         (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)

                                                                                                                       President

        (Nivedita Ghosh)                                                                           DCDRF, Burdwan

                Member

       DCDRF, Burdwan

                                    (Tapan Kumar Tripathy)                                  (Nivedita Ghosh)

                                                 Member                                                       Member

                                        DCDRF, Burdwan                                         DCDRF, Burdwan