IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 130/08 DATED 07-08-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sailal.C., Quarter No.2, Type 3, Postal Training Centre, Mysore, Karnataka.<br /> (By Sri.T.H.Shankaranarayana., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Authorised Signatory, State Bank of India, PBU, State Bank Bhavan, 4th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai.<br /> (Exparte)<br /> 2. Asst. Vice President, Customer Services, PO Bag 28 – GPO, New Delhi-110001.<br /> (Sri H.S.Kumar, Advocate)<br /> 3. Authorised Signatory, SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd., 2nd Floor, Turner Morrison Buuilding, GN Vaidya Marg. Fort, Mumbai-400023.<br /> (By Savithri.M.S., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 09.05.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 06.06.2008<br /> Date of order : 07.08.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties is that he is a SBI credit card holder, in the month of December 2007, he got a phone call from SBI card section, which is the concern of the Opposite parties offering a special scheme and to enroll to Super Suraksha Scheme of SBI Life Insurance and he is required to pay premium for 2 years and after 2 years the entire amount will be refunded to him. Then the Opposite parties also represented to him that he should join the scheme with a joint account holder to avail that offer and therefore he joined the scheme with his wife, paid the full premium of Rs.3,642/- for one policy and for the second policy he is paying the installment of Rs.188.17 monthly. After one month when he contacted SBI card section, he was told that such offer is not existence and that money will not be refunded after 2 years. Shocked by this he on 01.04.2008 sent a registered letter to SBI cad section requesting them to refund and to cancel the policies. Then he contacted all the Opposite parties through E-mail and also through phone and he was told that no such offer was made to him. It is further contended that any customer desire to enroll to the scheme has to satisfy the several requirements, but the Opposite parties without following such formalities have issued the policy. The complainant without making any specific prayer claimed for compensation under different heads in a sum of Rs.33,316.81 including refund of the premiums he has paid.<br /> 2. First Opposite party remained exparte. Second and third Opposite parties have filed their versions through their counsel separately. Second Opposite party in his version has contended that they had issued information to general public for receiving the applications for SBI insurance, accordingly the complainant on furnishing certain documents, a policy was issued and that the card holders were also offered flexible payment plan which facilitate them to pay the amounts and this Opposite party narrating about the system followed in issuing and operating credit card has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. The third Opposite party in his version has stated that in the course of their business they are issuing insurance both on individuals and in the form of group insurance to the credit card holders. That the complainant has not whispered against them attributing any deficiency and he has made only allegations against SBI cards. Therefore, it is not a necessary party to this complaint as the SBI life insurance and SBI card are 2 separate legal entities. They admitting to had received a letter from SBI card have stated that Super Suraksha Life Insurance Policy was taken by the complainant through tele-calling, thus the policy has been issued on the basis of oral consent received from the complainant and the complainant has admitted and agreed for the policy and paying premiums. If the complainant was not interested to continue the policy he had free look period and could have got the policy cancelled within that stipulated period, but he has not chosen to do so. Therefore, the premiums are paid on the consent of the complainant, and denying all other allegations have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into the grievance of the complaint, the complainant, one Sheel Ratna Sinha for second Opposite party and one V.Srinivas for third Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they stated in their respective complaint and versions. The complainant has produced a Xerox copy of the certificate of insurance issued by the third Opposite party and the statement of accounts from December 2007 to June 2008. Heard the complainant in person, counsel for the Opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in continuing the policy despite his request for cancellation?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- It is the grievance of the complainant that he is a SBI credit card holder that during December 2007 he received a telephone call from the SBI card section offering him a special scheme called “Super Surkasha Life Insurance scheme” in his name and also in the name of his wife on payment of first premium of Rs.3,642/- and Rs.188.17 per month for the policy of his wife and he was told that premium will be received for a period of 2 years and after 2 years the entire amount will be refunded. It is stated by him that believing this offer he agreed for the policy and on enquiry with Opposite parties he was shocked to here these Opposite parties telling him that they did not offer any such scheme of refunding entire paid amount after lapse of 2 years. Therefore, contended that he then addressed a letter to the Opposite parties on 31.03.2008 for cancellation of policies and with a request for refund of the premium amounts. The Opposite parties have contended as if the complainant has consented for issue of a policy then he had 30 days time to exercise option of either to continue the policy or to get it cancelled, but he did not do so and therefore have contended that the policy cannot be now cancelled and that paid up amount cannot be refunded.<br /> 8. Some of the conditions of the insurance policy issued by third Opposite party say that insurance cover shall commence from the date following the first premium debit to his / her SBI card account only if card holder has (a) opted for the scheme; (b) signed / accepted the good health declaration and the premium has been debited to his card account. This condition contemplates that the card holder as to voluntarily accept this scheme then sign and offer good health declaration and then make payment of premium. The complainant in his complaint and also in the affidavit evidence has stated that he was only consulted through telephonic calls and then the policy came to be issued and that he has not signed or accepted good health declaration. Even third Opposite party in their version and also in the affidavit have specifically stated that consent of this complainant was taken through tele-calling, they had even produced Annexure-A wherein it reveals that the complainant was consulted through telephonic call and policy came to be issued without even taking any health declaration. This admission of third Opposite party and the document Annexure-A they have produced supports the grievance of the complainant that he was consulted through telephonic call and the policy came to be issued by making false promises. These allegations of the complainant are not further controverted. No doubt, the complainant had an option of either to continue with the policy or to get it cancelled within 30 days, but he did not opt for it, but after having come to know that the Opposite parties had told him then they did not offer any scheme of refunding the paid up amount after 2 years, he then addressed a letter to all the Opposite parties on 31.03.2008 informing them of his unwillingness to continue with the policy and to cancel the policy. But this was not acted upon by the Opposite parties on the contrary SBI card section of the Opposite parties replied stating that the policy cannot be cancelled and that complainant shall continue to pay the outstanding amount as stated in the statement of account sent to the complainant. It is on perusal of entire materials placed before us, it is manifest that the Opposite parties by contacting the public through telephone call induce them by offering certain schemes, which are not in truth beneficial to the consumers and then they manage to get the consent through phone by misrepresentation and then issue policy by debiting the amount to their card account. It is the same that has happened in the case on hand. Even, though the complainant did not requested for cancellation of policy within 30 days, but when he informed the Opposite parties of his unwillingness to continue, atleast from that date, the Opposite parties should have cancelled the policy and stopped debiting premium amount to his account, but they did not do so.<br /> 9. The complainant has produced statement of account for the month of December 2007 during which the first premium of Rs.3,642/- is debited to his account and subsequently he paid that amount. Then on words, the first Opposite parties also started debiting a sum of Rs.188.17 as premium towards insurance policy of the complainant’s wife and this went on till June 2008, but on the complainant addressing a letters to the Opposite parties they should have from 1st April 2008 stopped debiting and appraising the premium amount towards insurance policy and cancelled the policy. But without resorting to that method continued to burden the complainant by way of debiting to his card account.<br /> 10. The third Opposite party office which has issued insurance policy to the complainant and his wife on the proposal sent by first and second Opposite parties who have issued the credit card to the complainant. Therefore, the 3rd Opposite party cannot contend that there is no privity of contract between themselves and the complainant and they are not necessary parties. It is this third Opposite party who had issued policy on the proposal sent by first and second Opposite parties and on sending premium amounts after debiting to the account of the complainant the third Opposite party is also equally liable and cannot escape of his accountable to the complainant. Hence, all the Opposite parties in our view are liable and accountable to the consumer the complaint. <br /> 11. The complainant in this complaint has prayed for refund of the first premium amount of Rs.3,642/- and the subsequent premiums paid till June 2008. But, it could be seen that the complainant exercise his option of cancellation of the policy through letter addressed to the Opposite parties on 31.03.2008. Therefore only he can exercise his option of getting policy cancelled w.e.f. that date and not from retrospectively. Because, the complainant having had the benefit of insurance policy if some contingency were to happen during the effective number of the policy till the date of cancellation, he would have had the advantage or benefit of the policy and enjoyed the benefits, but luckily nothing has happened. Therefore, the liability of the Opposite parties did not arise. That being so, the complainant who had agreed for taking the policy and was entitled to the benefit of the policy till the date of his request to cancel the policy is not entitled for refund of that amount. Further he would be entitled for refund of the amount debited to his account w.e.f. are after the date of intimation of cancellation of the policy to the Opposite party. In this regard, we refer to letter of the complainant dated 31.03.2008 and also reply of Manager, Customer Service SBI Cards, dated 12.04.2008. Though there has been delay sending the reply by this Opposite parties, but they ought not to have continue the policy and debited premium amount to the account of the complainant w.e.f. 1st April 2008. The complainant is in our view is not liable to pay the premium amounts with effect from 1st April 2008 with this we hold that the complainant deserves to be allowed in part by also directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to cancel his policy. As the result, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to cancel the Super Suraksha Insurance Policy issued to complainant and his wife with immediate effect from the date of receipt of this copy of the order.<br /> 3. If first and second Opposite parties after debiting premium amount of Rs.188.17 from 1st April 2008 onwards to the account of the complainant and if those premium amounts are recovered from the complainant then the Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall jointly and severally refund those amounts to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order failing which they shall pay interest at 18% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment of those premium amounts.<br /> 4. If first and second Opposite parties have not yet recovered those premiums after debiting to the account of the complainant, they shall immediately reverse those entries and shall not make any claim from the complainant.<br /> 5. The Opposite parties in the event of failing to cancel the policy, they shall pay Rs.250/- per month from the date of this order till they cancel the policy.<br /> 6. The Opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation of mental agony to the complainant and Rs.500/- towards the cost of this complaint. <br /> 7. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th August 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br />