Delhi

North East

CC/40/2021

Mahender Singh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.40/21

In the matter of:

	Mahender Singh Sharma, S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Sharma, R/o 1602, Janta Flat, GTB Enclave, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.         4.	State Bank of India Nand Nagri Branch, Delhi 110093   Shri Hirdey Kamal, Manager State Bank of India, Nand Nagri Branch, Delhi 110093   Smt. Mamta Working At: State Bank of India, Nand Nagri Branch, Delhi 110093   SBI Life Insurance, Shahdara, GT, Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

09.03.2021 04.10.2023 30.11.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was having a saving bank account with the Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant got retired on 31.12.2021 and got Rs. 40 lakhs as retirement benefits. Complainant planned to invest Rs. 40 lakhs in the form of FDR. On 24.04.2020, Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1, where Complainant met with Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 advised the Complainant that instead of deposited Rs. 40 lakhs in single FDR, Complainant could deposit Rs. 40 lakhs in 4 FDR, by which Complainant get more benefit. Complainant agreed for the same. On 27.02.2020, one official visited the house of the Complainant and said that he was here from Opposite Party No. 1 and since Complainant had taken a medical policy so medical examination of the Complainant was required. After that the Complainant said that he deposited Rs. 40 lakhs in FDR and not in any insurance policy and that official advised the Complainant to visit the office of Opposite Party No. 1. After that the Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1 and asked Opposite Party No. 2 then Opposite Party No. 2 replied that in case account holder was the age of 60 years or more then medical examination was required for the purpose of FDR. Complainant stated that after 3 and 4 days Complainant received an insurance policy at his residence then again Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1 and asked to the Opposite Party No. 2 that he had deposited his account in FDR then why this insurance policy got issued then Opposite Party No. 2 said that policy might be cancel if Complainant are not interested then that policy would be cancelled. After cancellation of policy the insurance company deducted Rs. 1,27,000/- from the principle amount of the Complainant and rest of the amount was refunded by the Opposite Party No. 4. The Complainant filed a complaint to the Opposite Party No. 1 as well as Opposite Party No. 4. Hence, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 who are the employees of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 4 had committed fraud. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,27,000/- i.e. actual loss as claim along with 18 % interest from 24.02.2020 to till the realization, Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2 Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4

3. The Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 contested the case and filed their common written statement. It is stated that the Complainant was trying to mislead the Hon'ble Commission. As per the records of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had applied for SBI Life-Smart Wealth Assure policy vide proposal no. 55NB851554 dated 24.02.2020 along with an initial proposal deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards single premium. On receipt of proposal form, the answering Opposite Parties made a pre-issuance welcome call to the Complainant to confirm the details of proposal form submitted by the Complainant and the Complainant confirmed the same. Being a very high sum assured and higher age the Complainant was required to undergo medical examination. The answering Opposite Parties raised the requirement of medical examination of the Complainant vide a letter dated 27.02.2020. The Complainant had undergone medical examination on 28.02.2020. It is further stated that based on the information provided in the proposal form, confirmation of the same during pre issuance welcome call and medical examination report and believing the same to be true and correct, the policy bearing no. 55369411002 was issued to him with date of commencement 28.02.2020 for a basic sum assured of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Complainant was well educated and experience to understand the contents of the proposal form as well as the policy documents. The Complainant was very well aware that he applied for the life insurance policy as he confirmed the same during pre issuance welcome call. It is further stated that the Complainant had undergone medical examination, as was evident from his photograph and he had duly signed the medical examination report. The Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 were the employees of SBI Life Insurance Company and the SBI Life was not in the business of banking and do the business of banking and FDR. Hence, the contentions raised by the Complainant are completely vague, baseless and hence not tenable. It is further stated that original policy bond was dispatched to the registered address of the Complainant and the same was duly received by the Complainant. Thereafter, answering Opposite Party received request dated 11.03.2020 for cancellation of the policy under free look period from the Complainant. The same was processed on 12.03.2021 and the amount of Rs. 18,73,015.78 payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy was made to the Complainant and the same had been duly received by the Complainant. There is no provision of refund of premium on cancellation of policy under free look period. The deduction and additions in the fund value under the policy had been made as per clause 11.1 Free Look period of the terms and conditions of the policy, which were duly approved by the IRDAI, hence the action of the Opposite Party is just and legal. The answering Opposite party had not cheated or committed any fraud with the Complainant. The answering Opposite Party had received the duly filled proposal form, for issuance of the policy. The answering Opposite Party confirmed over the phone the facts and details of the proposal form during the pre issuance welcome call process from the Complainant. After the confirmation from the Complainant the policy was issued to the Complainant. It is further stated that on receipt of the cancellation of the policy, the same had been cancelled and amount had been paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy which were duly approved by the IRDAI. Hence, the actions of the answering Opposite Party are just and legal and cannot be termed as cheating or fraud or deficiency in service. Hence, no cause of the action has arisen to the file this complaint. It is further stated that the Hon'ble National Commission while disposing of the revision petition no. 2884 of 2010 in SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Smt. Asha Dixit & others clearly held that …even though Opposite party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 are sister concerns belonging to the same SBI group, Since they are separate legal entities, Opposite Party No. 1 insurance company cannot be held responsible for the fault of the Opposite Party No. 2 Bank. Hence, the claim repudiation and the ground of non payment of renewal premium is perfectly valid and there is no deficiency in service because of Opposite Party No. 1 insurance Co.. Applying the same ration, there is not deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. It is prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4

4. Vide order dated 20.05.2022, Complainant stated that he did not want to file the rejoinder.

 

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4

6. To support their case Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 have filed affidavit of Smt. Neelam Singh, wherein, she has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4.  The case of the Complainant is that after getting Rs. 40 lakhs as retirement benefits, he approached the Opposite Party No. 1 to invest Rs. 40 lakhs in the form of FDR. On 24.04.2020, Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1 where he met with Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 2 advised the Complainant that instead of deposited Rs. 40 lakhs in single FDR, Complainant could deposit Rs. 40 lakhs in four FDR by which Complainant got more benefit. Complainant agreed for the same. It is alleged by the Complainant that instead of investing Rs. 40 lakhs in the FDR Opposite Parties invested Rs. 20 lakhs in FDR and fraudulently deposited Rs. 20 lakhs in the SBI Life-Smart Wealth Assure policy. After getting the insurance policy he approached the OP to cancel the policy and same was cancelled and Rs. 1,27,000/- was deducted from the principle amount of the Complainant and rest of the amount was refunded by the Opposite Party No. 4. Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.
8. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 is that the Complainant had applied for SBI Life- Smart Wealth Assure policy vide policy no. 55NB851554 dated 24.02.2020 along with an initial proposal deposited of Rs. 20 lakhs towards single premium. On receipt of proposal form, the answering Opposite Parties made a pre-issuance welcome call to the Complainant to confirm the details of the proposal form submitted by the Complainant and the Complainant confirmed the same. Being a very high sum assured and higher age the Complainant was required to undergo medical examination. It is further submitted by the Opposite Parties that on the basis of the information provided in the proposal form, confirmation of the same during pre issuance welcome call and medical examination report and believing the same to be true and correct, said policy was issued to the Complainant for a basic sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Complainant was well educated and experience to understand the contents of the proposal form as well as the policy documents. The Complainant was undergone medical examination and necessary welcome call. It is further stated by the Opposite Parties that original policy bond was dispatched to the registered address of the Complainant and the same was duly received by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Opposite Party received a request for cancellation of the policy under Free Look Period from the Complainant and the same was processes and   Rs. 18,73,015.78/- was paid to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the same had been duly received by the Complainant. The deduction and additions in the fund value under the policy had been made as per clause 11.1 Free Look Period of the policy which were duly approved by the IRDAI, hence the action of the Opposite Party is just and legal and cannot be termed as cheating or fraud or deficiency in service.
9. It is clear from the above facts that the Complainant himself signed the proposal form and undergone the medical examination as per requirement of the policy. Complainant has received the policy and deduction made by the Opposite Parties from the principle amount was as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The allegations of the Complainant regarding fraud was committed by the Opposite Parties in issuing the policy instead of FDR. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR. Versus R. Chandramohan, Civil Appeal no. 7289 of 2009 dated 27.03.2023 held that “The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts.”
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances we do not see any merit in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
11. Order announced on 30.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)