THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
APPEAL NO.390/2023 TO 392/2023
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. Appeal No.390/2023
1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.72, 1st Floor, Sukrutha Arcade,
Sahukar Chennaiah Road,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysuru – 570 009
Reptd by its Manager Operations
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd, ...Appellant/s
CPC 7th Level (D Wing) and
8th Level, Seawoods Nerual Node,
District Thane, Navi Mumbai-400 706
Reptd by the Managing Director
Appellants represented by
Head – Customer Relationships and
Customer Engagement
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.119, 1st Floor, JP Arcade, V Main,
Sri Puttanna Chetty Road,
Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018
(By Sri.K.P.Thrimurthy, Advocate)
-Versus-
Smt.Mamatha Hemanth,
W/o Sri.T.N.Hemanth,
Aged about 60 years, … Respondent/s
No.303, ENCON Yagnalaya,
Apartment No.82, 6th Main Road,
Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-12
(By Sri.Shivamurthy, Advocate)
2. Appeal No.391/2023
1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.72, 1st Floor, Sukrutha Arcade,
Sahukar Chennaiah Road,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysuru – 570 009
Reptd by its Manager Operations
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd, ...Appellant/s
CPC 7th Level (D Wing) and
8th Level, Seawoods Nerual Node,
District Thane, Navi Mumbai-400 706
Reptd by the Managing Director
Appellants represented by
Head – Customer Relationships and
Customer Engagement
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.119, 1st Floor, JP Arcade, V Main,
Sri Puttanna Chetty Road,
Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018
(By Sri.K.P.Thrimurthy, Advocate)
-Versus-
Sri.T.N.Hemanth,
S/o late Nagaraj.T.K,
Aged about 60 years, … Respondent/s
No.303, ENCON Yagnalaya,
Apartment No.82, 6th Main Road,
Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-12
(By Sri.Shivamurthy, Advocate)
3. Appeal No.392/2023
1. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.72, 1st Floor, Sukrutha Arcade,
Sahukar Chennaiah Road,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysuru – 570 009
Reptd by its Manager Operations
2. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd, ...Appellant/s
CPC 7th Level (D Wing) and
8th Level, Seawoods Nerual Node,
District Thane, Navi Mumbai-400 706
Reptd by the Managing Director
Appellants represented by
Head – Customer Relationships and
Customer Engagement
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.119, 1st Floor, JP Arcade, V Main,
Sri Puttanna Chetty Road,
Chamarajapet, Bengaluru – 560 018
(By Sri.K.P.Thrimurthy, Advocate)
-Versus-
Sri.Sumant Rao,
S/o late Nagaraj.T.K,
Aged about 60 years, … Respondent/s
No.303, ENCON Yagnalaya,
Apartment No.82, 6th Main Road,
Jayalakshmipuram, Mysuru-12
(By Sri.Shivamurthy, Advocate)
COMMON ORDER
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
All these Appeals No.390/2023 to 392/2023 are clubbed together for the purpose of common order.
2. The Appellants/Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in all these appeals have preferred these appeals against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission at Mysore in complaint Nos.171/2021, 170/2021 and 172/2021 respectively against the order passed by the District Commission which directed these appellants to pay the premium amount upto date paid along with interest @ 10% per annum and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in all the complaints with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and submits that all these complainants have filed the complaints before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not returning the premium amounts which sought to their legal notice.
These complainants have obtained six SBI Life Saral Pension policies in complaint No.171/2021 policy bearing Nos.1E617178302 and 1E437624810; in complaint No.170/2021 policy bearing Nos.1E775560502 and 1E688583906 and in complaint No.172/2021 policy bearing Nos.1E422197702 and 1E735169304. After obtaining the said policies, the complainants failed to continue the policies and not paid the premium amounts from 21.12.2020 and 17.1.2021 towards policies No.1E617178302 and 1E437624810 in complaint no.171/2020; from 29.11.2019 and 15.1.2021 towards policies No.1E775560502 and 1E688583906 in complaint No.170/2021 and from 28.2.2020 and 28.2.2021 towards policies No.1E422197702 and 1E735169304 in complaint No.172/2021 and further they have not continued the policies and due from 21-12-2020 and 17-1-2021 in policies Nos.1E617178302 and 1E437624810; due from 29.11.2020 and 15.1.2021 in policy Nos.1E775560502 and 1E688583906; and due from 28-2-2020 and 28-2-2021 in policy No.1E735169304 and 1E422197702. Since the policies premiums were unpaid and they have shown inability to refund the paid up value or surrender value of the policies.
3. Being aggrieved by the said, the complainants approached the District Commission and filed the complaints. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaints and directed these appellants to pay Rs.33,95,154/- with interest @10% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said amount and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- in complaint No.171/2021; to pay balance interest @6.5% p.a. on Rs.19,82,344/- from 31-5-2021 and refund premium of Rs.10,12,185/- with interest @10% p.a. from the date of receipt of said premium amount and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- in complaint no.170/2021; and to pay/refund Rs.39,64,692/- with interest @10% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said amount and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- in complaint no.172/2021 respectively. In fact they are not liable to pay any said amounts with interest and also not liable to pay any compensation as there is no deficiency in service. The policies terms and conditions are binding on the parties, merely basing on the letter issued to the complainant in complaint No.170/2021 claimed for refund of the entire amount. The letter issued to the complainant in complaint No.170/2021 was not applicable to other policies; hence they have shown their inability, but the District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaints and directed these appellants to pay the above said amounts. The order passed by the District Commission lacks of legality, hence prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and prays for dismiss the complaints, in the interest of justice and equity by allowing these appeals.
4. Heard from both sides.
5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and letter issued by these appellants to the complainant in complaint No.170/2021, they have categorically admitted that the policyholder is entitled to get a monthly pension of Rs.96,576/- (approximately) in case of payment of premium for 10 years which starts from 11th years onwards and the policyholder is also entitled to get pension of Rs.57,460/- (approximately). In case if the premiums for five years were paid subsequently they have also extended the annuity two lives and they have mentioned the policy schedule part-I; which reads as under;
“Please note that this correction in the name will constitute a part of “Schedule-Part I” of the policy document originally issued.
2) When it comes to life Annuity (two lives): The annuity payout will continue at a guaranteed rate, through-out the life of the annuitants. As an annuitant, you may choose of the following life annuity options. Life and last survivor income with capital refund,
Annuity is payable at a constant rate till the 1st annuitant income with capital reund,
On death of the 1st annuitant, 2nd annuity payment will continue throughout the life of the surviving.
Secondary annuitant, on the death of last survivor, we will refund the premium to the nominee.
3) As discussed, the pension starts from 11th years onwards and monthly pension will be Rs.96,576/- (approximately) in case you pay for 10 years and monthly pension from 11th years onwards will be Rs.57,460/- (approximately) in case you pay for only five years.”
6. Basing on the said letter, the complainants/ respondents have sought for said facility/benefits to all the policies which they have obtained, but the Opposite Parties/ these appellants have orally declined to provide such benefits. Being aggrieved by the said refusal, the complainants issued a legal notice for extension of benefits to the other policies also, but these appellants either replied or provided the said facilities. Instead of that they have taken defence before the District Commission that the letter issued to the complainants in complaint No.170/2021 was not applicable to the other policies. We are of the opinion that, when the policies obtained by the complainants is of the particular scheme. Such as the SBI Life Saral Pension Scheme, the terms and conditions of the policies always extended to all the complainants in all the policies. These appellants cannot distinguish the same type of the policies and benefits in between the complainants. It is a clear case of deficiency in service in denying the benefits payable to the complainants. We noticed here that, the appellants before the District Commission not at all specified the benefits from all the policies which are extended to the complainants. In absence of such, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. The complainants are entitled to get refund of the entire amounts when the policies benefits are not provided as per the policies terms and conditions and the letter issued to the one of the complainant. As such, no interference is required. No valid grounds urged before this commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeals are dismissed and we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The Appeal Nos.390/2023, 391/2023 and 392/2023 are dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order 19.1.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore in CC.No.171/2021, 170/2021 and 172/2021 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainants.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
