Haryana

Panchkula

CC/672/2019

HARPAL SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	672 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	19.12.2019
Date of Decision	:	06.04.2023

 

 

Harpal Singh, aged 48 years, son of Shri Kaha Singh, resident of House No.88, VPO Saketri, Near Water Tank, Panchkula(Haryana)-134109.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     State Bank of India, Branch Saketri, Tehsil and District Panchkula       through its Branch Manager.

2.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.331, First Floor,        Sector-9, Panchkula-134109 through its Branch Manager.

3.     SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., 7^th  Level(D Wing) & 8^th Level,        Seawoods Ground Central, Tower-2, Plot No.Sector-40,   Seawoods, Nerul Node, District Thane, Navi Mumbai-400706 through its authorized signatory.

                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 18.2.2020.

                        Sh. Rajnesh Malhotra, Advocate for the OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had received some amount, during the Year 2017, on account of enhanced compensation against the acquisition of the agriculture land situated at Village Saketri, Tehsil and District Panchkula and that the then Branch Manager of the OP No.1 told that bank has launched a new FD Scheme, which was beneficial and, thus, took the complainant under faith. Thereafter, the then branch Manager of the OP no.1 had obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank proformas on the pretext to prepare the FDs of the said amount. The then branch Manager also disclosed him that, if at all any call was received by him from the Ops, then the complainant had to say “Yes Yes”. It is stated that the OPs had got issued five life Insurance policies i.e. Policy no.53373250204 (20.12.2017), IK-761181610 (30.11.2017), IK-513106706 (27.11.2017), IK-745232108 (27.11.2017 & IK-361525110 (27.11.2017) in the name of the complainant and his family members. It is submitted that after about one year, the complainant had received a call from the OPs, wherein they demanded further amount on account of premium of the said Life Insurance Policies, whereas, the complainant  at no point of time had showed his willingness to purchase any life insurance policy and had only given consent for the FD of the said amount, but the Ops, in order to grab the amount of the complainant got issued the said life insurance policies of premium of Rs.3,50,000/- per annum instead of issuing  the FD of the said amount. It is stated that the Ops had further illegally deducted amount of subsequent premium qua the policy no.IK-761181610, IK-513106706, IK-745232108 & IK-361525110. It is stated that when the fact regarding issuance of policies, instead of FD, came into the knowledge of the complainant, he made numerous calls on the toll free number of the OPs but they did not give any response. It is stated that the source of income of the complainant is only from the agriculture and he is having no other source of income. It is stated that the complainant, feeling cheated and dupted by the OPs, in connivance with each other approached the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint, who had found it a case of mis-selling and thus, directed the Ops to refund the premium amount without any deduction vide award dated 17.05.2019. It is stated that the OPs have refunded the amount of the premium as received from the complainant i.e. Rs.6,49,200/- without any interest  in the month of June, 2019 whereas, the Ops have illegally retained the said amount of the complainant for about  two years and hence,  are liable to pay the bank interest/FD interest on the said amount. Due to the act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 18.02.2020.

                Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objections qua the present complaint is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is submitted that complaint has been filed with regard to the policy nos.53373250204, IK-761181610, IK-513106706, IK-745232108 & IK-361525110 but the policy nos. i.e. the IK-761181610, IK-513106706, IK-745232108 & IK-361525110 were not issued in favour of the complainant; hence, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant had filed a complaint before the Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which is a quasi Judicial body, established by Central Government notification under Redressed of Public Grievance Rules, 1998. The Ombudsman had heard  the case and given  his award  on 17.05.2019 to cancel all the five policies  bearing numbers 53373250204, IK-761181610, IK-513106706, IK-745232108 & IK-361525110(issued  to 5 different policy holders) since inception and refund all the premium collected there in (i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1,99,800/-, Rs.99,800/-, Rs.99,800/- and Rs.99,800/- respectively) without interest  and without deduction  of any charges. Accordingly, all 5 policies were cancelled and amount refunded to the complainant as per the order issued by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh; hence, there is no deficiency in the service on the part of Ops. It is stated that the complainant, once having accepted the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, is estopped by his act and conduct to lodge the present complaint. The complaint is time barred. The complainant/policy holders did not opt for the free look cancellation within the statutory 15 days period. The complainant does not fall under the category of consumer as defined under the C.P.Act.

                On merits, the issuance of policies no.53373250204, IK761181610, IK-513106706, IK745232108 & IK361525110 in favour of the complainant and his family members have been admitted. It is submitted that the aforementioned policies were issued in favour of the complainant and his family members on the basis of proposal forms, which were duly signed by all of them, after going through the relevant terms and conditions. It is stated that pre-issuance welcome calling(hereinafter referred to as PIWC) was conducted for the policies; PIWC is a process, whereby the proposer is contacted to verify the details contained in the proposal before issuance of the policy. The complainant attended the calls under the policies and he had confirmed the premium payment term under all the policies. The original policy documents were discharged to the complainant and his family members on 28.11.2017, 30.11.2017,01.12.2017, 03.12.2017 & 02.01.2018. It is submitted that the policy bearing no.53373250204 had lapsed due to non-payment of renewal premium since 20.12.2018, whereas the renewal premium was received qua rest of the policies. It is submitted that the insurance Ombudsman vide award dated 17.05.2019 has directed as follows:- to cancel all the 5 policies bearing numbers 53373250204, IK761181610, IK513106706, IK745232108 & IK361525110 since inception and refund all the premium collected  there in without interest and without deduction  of any charges.   On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 3.            To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavits as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-21 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OPs No.2 & 3, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the premium amount as collected by the OPs No. 2 and 3 qua issuance of five different insurance policies in favour of the Complainant and his family members has already been refunded to the Complainant in compliance of award dated 17.05.2019(Annexure R-16) passed by Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh in case No. CHD-L-041-1819-1158. Now, the grievances of the Complainant are that he is entitled to the receipt of interest on the amount of premium i.e. Rs. 6,49,200/-, which was got invested by the OPs, in life insurance policies in place of Fixed deposits scheme (FDs). 

                During arguments, the Complainant reiterating the averments as made in the complaint as also in his affidavit Annexure C-A has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the OP No. 1 has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent from the hearing of the present complaint and accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.02.2020 and thus, the assertions  and contentions made by the complainant against it go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             The OPs No. 2 and 3 have contested the present complaint, apart from merits, by raising several preliminary objections. During arguments, the Ld. Counsel for OPs No. 2 and 3 reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit Annexure R-A and vehemently contended that the amount of premium i.e. Rs. 6,49,200/- as collected from the Complainant and his family members qua five different insurance policies have already been refunded to the Complainant and his family members in compliance of award dated 17.05.2019 Annexure R-16 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh. It is contended that the present complaint is not maintainable after the settlement of the dispute between the parties by the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh vide his award dated 17.05.2019 i.e. Annexure R-16. It is vehemently argued that the OPs have already acted upon the said award dated 17.05.2019 i.e. Annexure R-16 and the Complainant and his family members have also accepted the same; thus, the Complainant is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence to file the present Complaint. The main submissions made by the Ld. Counsel may be summarized as under:-

1.  That the Complainant and his family members had submitted the proposal forms, on the basis of which, five different insurance policies were issued.
2.  That the Complainant did not opt to cancel the policies within the statutory looking period of 15 days.
3.  That the Complainant and his family members had paid the second installment also in four different policies out of five insurance policies.
4.  That the award dated 17.05.2019 i.e. Annexure R-16 passed by the Ombudsman Chandigarh has become final and executed; thus, the present complaint is not maintainable.
5.  That the Complainant and his family members have accepted the already refunded amount to them and thus, the Complainant by his act, conduct and acquiescence is estopped to file the present complaint.
6.  That the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of other policy holders.

Reliance has been placed upon several case laws as mentioned in its reply i.e. Annexure R-15, which was submitted before the Ombudsman Chandigarh in Complaint No. CHD-L-041-1819-1158.

8.  
9.  

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Dr. Maya Vaid, II(2009)CPJ348(NC)
2. Dhanbir Singh Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, III(2012)CPJ1(SC).

 

10. In view of the law laid down in aforementioned cases, the plea taken by the OPs No. 2 and 3 qua maintainability of the Complaint is rejected.

11.  
12.  
13.  
14.  

15. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is partly allowed with the direction to the OP No. 1 as well as OPs No. 2 and 3 to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum (Simple Interest) on the premium amount of Rs. 6,49,200/-, as collected from the Complainant and his family members qua five different insurance policies, with effect from the date of receipt of premium amount of respective policies till refund of the same. Since, the Complainant and his family members had availed the risk cover till the premium amount was refunded to them, the prayer qua grant of compensation on account of mental agony and harassment is declined. However, the litigation charges as Rs.5,500/- shall be paid by the OP No.1 as well as OPs No.2 & 3.

 16.          The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:06.04.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                       Member                  President

 

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

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President