Date of filing: 18.11.2016 Date of disposal: 24.7.2017
Complainant: Silpi Chakrabartti (Bhattacharyya), W/o. Sri Sudhindranath Chakrabartti, resident of Bajepratappur, Vidyasagar Pally, Harinarayanpur, PO., PS. & District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. State Bank of India, having its Branch Office at Bajepratappur, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101, represented by its Branch Manager.
2. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, having its Branch Office at Hawker’s Market, 3rd floor, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, Pin – 713 101, represented by its Branch Manager.
3. The Regional Director, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at 4th Floor, Kankaria Centre, 2/1, Russel Street, Kolkata – 700 071.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh & Debdas Rudra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1: Ld. Advocate, Soham Som & Nirmal Kuamr Chakroborty.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Monalisha Banerjee.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the Ops neither delivered her the original policy bond till filing of this complaint nor refund the first policy premium amount though several requests were made.
The fact of the complaint is that the complainant was insured under a policy bearing Policy No. 35104662007 issued by the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The OP-1 is acting as an agent of the OP-2 and the said policy was issued by the OP-2 in favour of the complainant dated 24.12.2015. At the time of commencement of the said policy the complainant observed all the official formalities by filing upon the policy form on 24.12.2015 and also deposited Rs. 34,323=00 towards the first premium amount. The sum insured amount of the said policy was Rs. 10, 00,000=00 and mode of payment was yearly basis. After receiving the said premium amount of Rs. 34,323=00 the OP-2 issued a money receipt in favour of the complainant. At the time of commencement of the said policy the OP-2 told the complainant that the original policy bond would be delivered to her within one month from the date of commencement of the said policy. But two months have already been expired but the complainant could not get the original policy bond. So the complainant sent a letter dated 28.3.2016 top the OP-2 stating that as per their commitment the Ops did not deliver the said original policy bond to the complainant. Moreover, inspite of several requests through email from the side of the complainant the Ops did not bother to take any steps regarding the delivery of the said original policy bond to the complainant, as such, the complainant was very much dissatisfied with the service of the Ops and so the complainant requested the OP-2 to cancel the said policy immediately and to refund the said premium amount of Rs. 34,323=00 to the complainant as early as possible. After receiving the letter dated 28.3.2016 one Mr. Angshuman Ghose, head-processing centre, Kolkata, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. sent a letter dated 31.3.2016 stating that the original policy document has been dispatched to the address of the complainant through speed post and the same has not been received as undelivered till now and requested the complainant to visit any of their SBI Life Branch along with her photo ID and address proof for issuance of duplicate policy bond and also stated that the complainant might further write to the OP-3. Thereafter, the complainant sent a letter dated 26.4.2016 to the OP-3 stating that the complainant did not want to proceed the said policy and so, requested the OP-3 to cancel the policy and to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 34,323=00 towards the first premium. After receiving the said letter the Ops 26.4.2016 the Senior Manager Processing Centre, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata sent a letter dated 18.5.2016 to the officer-in-charge general post office, 7 BBD Bag, Kolkata – 700 001 requesting to share the delivery details of the policy bond which was sent from their head office at Mumbai through speed post vide EMS No. EA10717439IN, dated 30.12.2015. The complainant requested the Ops for several times to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount for Rs. 34,323=00 to the complainant as early as possible, but the Ops did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also stated that she would not pay the next premium which is to be paid as per policy bond in the month of December, 2016. But till date inspite of several requests from the part of the complainant, the Ops did not refund the said premium amount of Rs. 34,323=00 after cancellation of the said policy which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Finally, the complainant, finding no other alternative to get relief, has been compelled to file this case before this ld. Forum with a prayer for refund of Rs. 34,323=00 towards the first premium paid by the complainant against the policy bearing No. 35104662007, Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and also Rs. 10,000=00 as litigation cost.
This complaint is contested by the OP-1 by filing written version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint. The OP-1 has stated that the complainant has not filed any documents from which it will be proved that the OP-1 is acting as an agent of the OP-2. The OP-1 further submits that from the documents which the complainant has annexed have not proved that there is any consumer dispute or deficiency in service or negligent or laches in service on the part of the OP-1. The OP-1 further submits that the complainant at his own desire insured herself by purchasing a SBI Life Insurance Policy from the OP-2 & 3 and entered into an agreement with OP-2 & 3 but in the aforesaid matter the OP-1 has no activity or part. So, there is no question of deficiency or negligent of service on the part of the OP-1. The OP-1 and the OP-2 &3 are separate institution and separate wings and there is no such intermediary relation between SBI and SBI Life Insurance. So, if any deficiency happens regarding the Life Insurance Policy then that is on the part of the OP-2 & 3, not on the part of the OP-1 but the complainant has made the OP-1 as a party in this instant case with some ill motivation. There is no such specific allegation against the OP-1 in the complaint petition from which it will be proved that there is deficiency or negligent in service on the part of the OP-1. So, the OP-1 must exempt from the instant suit as the Op. The OP-1 again begs to submit that from the aforesaid statements it is clear that there is no question of consumer dispute or deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 and the OP-1 for any reason are not liable to compensate any claim or redresses any grievance of the complainant. The complaint is baseless and without any cause and the complainant has filed this complaint as test suit for undue gain from the Ops by misguiding the Ld. Forum and for such act the complaint should be dismissed with exemplary cost.
This complaint has also been contested by the OP-2&3 by filing conjoint written version stating that the OP had dispatched the original policy document at the registered address of the complainant on 30.12.2015 by speed post vide AWB No. EA110717439IN and the same was not returned undelivered at the office of the OP. Hence, it was presumed that the same must have been received by the policyholder. The proposal form is the basis of the contract of insurance. Under the Doctrine of Utmost Good Faith, the insurer can rely on the information given in the Proposal form and assess the risk and issue the policy. The main allegation of the complainant is non-receipt of policy document, it is submitted that the policy bond was dispatched by speed post, which is a Government Agency and the same is an accepted and recognized mode of sending the communication. The Postal Department does not maintain records for more than two months and hence the company is not able to provide the delivery details. The policy has not been returned to the company as undelivered. Hence, complainant’s contention that she has not received the policy document and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Company is not tenable and hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the policy document is an evidence of the insurance contract and has a commercial value. The insurance policy can be utilized as a security by assigning it to the financial institution or banks…… etc. There are chances where the policyholder assigns the original policy/ies to the financial institution or bank against the loan and may still apply for a duplicate policy which he/she can use for any other purpose. To avoid this type of fraud and misuse of the policy document, it is a general practice of the insurer to take indemnity from the policyholder before issuing the duplicate policy document. In the instant case also, the policy was dispatched to the complainant’s mailing address through an accepted and recognized mode of communication. The said OPD has not been received undelivered and hence only the duplicate policy document can be issued subject to the fulfillment of necessary requirements.
- Duplicate Policy Bond application form duly completed, witnessed and signed.
- Indemnity Bond
- Self-attested recent photograph
- Self-attested KYC document
- Other requirements.
It is humbly submitted that the answering OP is ready to issue duplicate policy document subject to submission of above-mentioned requirements. It is also submitted that the policy bond was dispatched by speed post, which is a Government Agency and the same is an accepted and recognized mode of sending the communication. The Postal Department does not maintain records for more than two months and hence the company is not able to provide the delivery details. The policy has not been returned to the company as undelivered. Hence complainant’s contention that she has not received the policy document and there is deficiency in service on the part of the company is not tenable and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. Though the policy document is alleged to have not been received by the complainant, the company has covered the risk on the life of the complainant because the policy document is just an evidence of the contract and the loss of policy document or non-receipt of policy document does not mean loss of the risk cover. A policy document is just an evidence of contract of insurance and the loss of which will not deprive the insurance cover to the complainant. However, the policy cannot be cancelled and the amount of Rs. 34,323=00 cannot be refunded as the complainant has been availing the insurance cover for the premium paid by her. The OP-2&3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Heard argument in full.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The main dispute of the case as alleged by the complainant is that he has not received the original policy bond within one month as laid in IRDA after due observance of the official formalities after paying Rs.34,323=00 towards the first premium amount.
After going through the papers and documents submitted by the contesting parties on affidavit as evidence as well as the complaint and the written versions given by the O.ps., it is evident that the complainant informed the O.P. 2 about the non-receipt of original policy bond by sending a letter dated 28.3.2016 as well as cancellation of the policy as early as possible due to dissatisfaction of the service of O.P. No.2.
Just after getting the said letter from the complainant O.P. No.2 sent a letter dated 31.3.2016 stating the mode of delivery of the concerned policy bond through speed post at the registered address of the complainant vide AWB No.EA110717439 IN dated 30.12.2015 and the same bond has not been returned undelivered at the office of the O.P. No.2. Speed post is a government agency and same is an accepted and recognize mode of sending any communication. So, O.P. No.2 claims that he has no deficiency in service for sending the original policy bond. Moreover, O.P. No.2 has told the complainant to get his duplicate policy bond from any branch of LICI by producing cogent documents as stated in this letter. But the complainant has not done it rather he insisted for having the original policy bond. Secondly the O.P. No.2 has iterated vehemently during argument that the policy bond is an evidence of an insurance contract and has commercial value. The insurance policy can be utilized as a security by assigning it to the financial institution or bank. There are chances where the policy holder assigns the original policy to the financial institution or bank against the loan and may still apply for a duplicate policy for which he can choose for any other purpose. To avoid this type of fraud and misuse of the policy document it is a general practice of the insurer to take indemnity from the policy holder before issuing the duplicate policy document. In the instant case also the policy was dispatched to the complainant’s mailing address through an accepted and recognized mode of communication. The said OPD has not been received undelivered. Hence, only the duplicate policy documents can be issued subject to the fulfillment of necessary documents which the complainant did not incline to do. Hence, the O.P. No.2 is not able to issue the duplicate policy document due to non-submission of the required documents. That is why the complainant did not get the original policy bond as well as the duplicate policy bond. Though the policy document is alleged to have not been received by the complainant the company has covered the risk on the life of the complainant because the policy documents is just an evidence of contract of insurance and the loss of policy documents or non-receipt of policy document does not mean loss of the risk cover. That is why the policy cannot be cancelled and the amount of Rs.34,323=00 cannot be refunded as the complainant has been availing the insurance cover for the premium paid by her. Hence, the complainant loses her case. Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint No.199/2016 is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
