Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/148/2022

SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURUCHI - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH K MALHOTRA ADV.

22 Jun 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

Appeal No	:	A/148/2022
Date  of  Institution	:	28/10/2022
Date   of   Decision	:	22/06/2023

 

 

 

 

 

1.   SBI Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Panchkula, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.   SBI Life Insurance Co. Limited, Registered & Corporate Office, M.V. Road, Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400069, through its Managing Director.

 

3.   Ram Vilas Bansal, Territory Manager, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.304, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Panchkula.  

…. Appellants

 

V E R S U S

 

Ms. Suruchi  daughter of Sh. Raj Thakur, Resident of H.No.M-23, GH-94, PGI Enclave, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana.

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Ms. Yagyashree Singh, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants.
		Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2022, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/516/2022, in the following terms:-

“11]      In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Parties and they are directed as under:-

(i)  To pay an amount of Rs.21,389/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of the deposit till its realization.

(ii) To pay Rs.10,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

(iii)  To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant.

12]      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.”  

2.      For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

3.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that she purchased an insurance policy bearing No. 35615395710 from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, with lock-in-period of 05 years and for getting benefits of the aforesaid Policy, she had to pay the annual premium of ₹29,988/- for at least five years. Accordingly, in terms of the said policy, without any default, she paid annual premium @ ₹29,988/- from 2017 to 2021 totaling to ₹1,48,204/-. After five years, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 with a request to release the deposited amount along with interest and also complied with all the paper formalities. However, instead of releasing the deposited amount, the Opposite Parties released only a sum of ₹1,26,815/- and withheld with ₹21,389/-, against which the Complainant lodged her protest by way of e-mails, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

4.      Upon notice, the Opposite Parties resisted the consumer complaint and while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that they have paid the surrender value payable according to the terms & conditions of the policy and nothing more was payable. Further, on surrender, the policy contract has ended and all the rights under the policy have been extinguished. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended and a prayer for dismissal of the Complaint was made.

 

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the consumer Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.     

 

6.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties.

 

7.      We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties at length and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, along with written arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants/Opposite Parties,  with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.      The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10.      It is the case of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite Parties argued that in case the Complainant wanted to make Mr.Ramesh Chandra Verma a party to the Complaint, he had ample opportunity to do so, but failed to do the same. However, we are not impressed with the same, as once the Appellants/ Opposite Parties have themselves admitted that the proposal was sourced by their Insurance Advisor (Mr. Ramesh Chandra Verma having IA Code No. 990553974), it is only the said Mr. Ramesh Chandra Verma who could throw light on the aspect that he had made the Complainant to purchase the policy in question on condition that she was required to pay atleast five years premium upon which she could withdraw the amount along with benefits. In this backdrop, to our mind, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly observed that neither the Opposite Parties placed on record anything to prove the same, nor there was any document, much less affidavit of said Mr. Ramesh Chandra Verma to that effect. The affidavit filed in support of the reply of Ms. Neelam Singh, AVP Legal/authorized representative of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. was thus aptly discarded to be not sufficient to prove the said fact.

 

11.      Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the Ld. Lower Commission failed to take into consideration that the complainant had opted for annual mode of premium payment in the proposal form and the policy was issued accordingly. Record shows, the policy in question was an endowment plan, which came with a lock-in period of stipulated years. The Ld. Lower Court has taken the cognizance of the same and observed that the policy in question was a regular premium policy having annual premium payment mode of 7 years with basic sum assured of ₹1,81,000/- and similar sum assured for preferred term rider. The date of commencement of the policy was 11.03.2017 and the policy was to mature on 11.03.2024, but was surrendered by the Complainant on 17.01.2022 after paying the premium for five years as per assurance given at the time of selling the policy. The Ld. Lower Commission has, therefore, rightly held the act of the Appellants for withholding the amount from the deposited amount of the Complainant, to be deficiency in service, especially when they failed to show any provision to justify the same.

 

12.      Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Ld. Lower Commission failed to appreciate that under the policy no other amount was payable and the order to refund the complete amount with interest & cost was erroneous. However, we do not find any substance in this submission, in as much as, as per non-forfeiture benefits clause under the policy, a policy having less than 10 years terms, on payment of at least 2 full policy years’ premiums acquires full paid up value.  By applying this clause of Non Forfeiture, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly held the complainant entitled to full refund. A categorical finding was recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission that only a nominal charge was required to be deducted and on surrendering of the policy post five years from the commencement date, the fund value, as available on the date of request, was payable and the policy benefits cease. To our mind, the Appellants/Ops were grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the Respondent/ Complainant and by withholding ₹21,389/- has indulged in unfair trade practice.

 

13.      Ld. Counsel for the Appellants raised a plea that amount under the policy cannot be refunded as the life risk cover along with other taxes have already been paid to the govt. and this Commission may take into consideration that if life risk cover charges are not taken, then no life cover can be granted by the life insurance company. As against this, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent argued that the policy issued to the Complainant/Respondent is a case of mis-selling as the Agents make such lucrative offers that the intended customers get trapped and in the present matter, this was what actually happened. Although this has been stoutly countered by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants, yet we find force in this limb of argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel. Mis-selling is rampant in India, especially when agents are selling policies, as there is no proof or recording of what they say to the customer. This whole menace basically stems from the practice of assigning targets and incentivising sales personnel for achieving/ overachieving the targets. In their zeal to earn incentives, sales personnel resort to questionable practices including misselling. It is thus, vouch safe to conclude that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had not sold the policy to the Complainant in a transparent manner and that it was a clear case of mis-selling. Resultantly, the plea raised by the Appellants regarding non-refund of the amount under the policy does not hold any ground and is accordingly declined. No case is therefore made for any interference in the findings recorded qua this issue by the Ld. Lower Commission. 

 

14.      No other point was urged, by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.

 

15.      It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. Lower Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

16.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

 

17.      The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

18.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

19.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

22^nd June, 2023                                

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER