Ld. Advocate(s)

                                    For Complainant: Self                                                         

                                    For OP/OPs : Suvankar Bhattacharya

            Date of filing of the case                  :05.10.2020

            Date of Disposal  of the case           :30.07.2024

Final Order / Judgment dtd.30.07.2024

The basic fact of the case of the complainant  is that the complainant  Mihir Kumar  Mitra  purchased   one  Insurance  Policy   of  SBI  Life Unit Plus-II Single Scheme of Rs.99,000/- on 31.03.2018 bearing policy no. 25011494310, sum assured  Rs.618750/-for the period of 10 years. The premium allocation charge is 2837.20 plus policy administrative charge and Mortality and Rider charge with service tax and the balance amount of Rs.98162.80 has been invested in two funds to Indian Capital Market. In equity fund 1810.98 units of Rs.38.16 each and in Bond fund Rs.3009.79 units of Rs. 12.78 was invested for 10 years. The said policy is a unit linked plan where returns depend on the market performance. Premium paid are subject to investment risk associated with capital market and Net Asset Value (NAV) which may go up and down, based on the performance of the fund and factors influencing capital market.  The returns are not fixed in this policy. Life Cover was available to the policy holder from the first day for a sum assured payable to the nominee in case of death of the policy holder. After the maturity of the said policy the complainant went to the concerned bank. The SBI Life OP asked the complainant to submit all the relevant documents and wait for some days. After a few  days the OP company  SBI Life  informed  the complainant  that the matured  amount has been  credited  to the savings  bank account. The complainant was shocked having seen that a sum of Rs.42 is the fund value on 21.12.2017. The actual investment value of Rs.99,000/- is converted  to Rs.42/- which is absurd and illegal.  So, it is an unfair trade practice. Thereafter,  the complainant lodged a complaint to the higher authority  on 25.06.2018. The OP replied that as per the product feature if the fund value goes down below 10,000/- they close the policy and refund the fund value.  Accordingly, it was decided to refund the last fund value of Rs.10914.37 as on 30.08.2015 along with interest.  They requested to collect Rs.13835.42 but the complainant has not received the said money. Thereafter, the complainant collected the transaction cum unit statement on 03.05.2018. It was  found that the equity  fund of 1810.98 units  of Rs.31.86 each now  value for Rs.84.20 each and in Bond  fund of 3009.79 units  of 12.78 each now  value for  Rs.30.50 as  on 31.03.2018. So, invested value of Rs.99,000/- is may  as 2,44,283.11 as on 31.03.2018 but the OP illegally  and whimsically  cancelled all units time to time upto 31.12.2015. All units are cancelled /sold before the maturity as a result there is no balance in the policy. Due to such misdeeds of the OP the complainant suffered mental harassment and agony which is unfair trade practice. The complainant sent a legal notice on 03.08.2020 to the OP but they did not reply, so the present case is filed. The cause of action arose on 24.09.2020 and on subsequent dates. The complainant  prayed for an award   for   Rs.2,44,283.11  towards  maturity   value,   Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony and unfair trade practice  and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

The OP No.1 did not contest the case  and as such  it is heard ex-parte against OP No.1.

OP No.2&3&4 contested the case  by filing  W/V wherein  they denied the major allegation against them. The OPs challenged the case as not maintainable. The positive defence case  of OP No.2&3&4 in brief is that the complainant  is not a consumer. The complainant  submitted  one proposal  form for a SBI Life Unit Plus-II Single Premium  Plan  along with initial  premium deposited of Rs. 99,000/- on 07.09.2007. The sum assured  is 618750 and the term of the policy  is 10 years  under point number 4.1 basic plan. The policy  was a market linked  plan wherein in the premium amount is paid  by the policy holder and its invested in the capital market. It is stated  therein  that “Investment  risk in investment portfolio is bond by the policy     holder.  The complainant  understood  and agreed  the terms and conditions. The investment  is always  subject to market risk and return  depends  on the performance of the financial  markets on the date of reckony. The various charges  are also deductable  from the premium  paid by the complainant. From the initial  premium  paid relevant  charges  will be deducted and balance  will be used  by the company  to buy appropriate  number of units of each  fund in accordance with the allocation  percentage selected  the NAV of the units of each fund may fluctuate  from time to time  and changes  in the prevalent  rate of interests . There is no guaranteed return  on this products. The company  will periodically liquidate  each number of units from each  fund to meet rider  premium.  In the instant  case the policy offers a risk cover  of 618750. The date of maturity  of the policy  is 31.03.2018. The various charges  were deducted  in accordance with the  clause . The complainant  had paid Single Premium  of Rs.99,000/- , accordingly,  Rs.1980/- (2%) was deducted  initially.  The complainant  opted  in allocation  of 60% of basic premium  in equity  fund and 40% in Bond  fund. The balance amount of Rs.97020/- was  invested.  The NAV as on 31.03.2018 was 31.86 and accordingly,  60% of the basic premium  was invested  in the equity  fund (NAV 31.86X1827.12 units =58212.04.)  The NAV for Bond  fund  was 12.72 accordingly,  40% was  invested (NAV 12.78X3036.62 units=38808.) From the  invested  amount 61.20 was deducted for administration  charges and Rs.796 for mortality charges. So,  the total invested  amount after  deduction  was 96162.80. Monthly  policy administration  charges  of Rs.61.20 was  deducted /gradually   increased   to  Rs.82.11.  Total  amount   Rs.6905.15  was recovered towards administrative charge. The complainant  was 61 years old. Accordingly, Rs.128363.27 was deducted  towards mortality  charge by liquidating  units  from the fund. The insurance cover of the complainant was for Rs.618750/-. The total  mortality  charges till 30.08.2015 was Rs.128363.27 for the complainant  due to advance age. As per clause 4(H) if the fund value  falls below Rs.10,000/- at the time  of deduction  of charges,  the policy will  immediately  terminate  and the fund value  without deduction  of any charges  will be paid  to the policy holder  and all rights  and benefit under the policy  will automatically  seize.  In the instant case the date of maturity  of the policy was 31.03.2018 whereas on 30.08.2015 the fund value  was 10914/-. However,  the answering  OPs did not terminate  the policy  and kept  the policy  in force   as a service  gesture. The maturity  benefit is equal  fund value (Based  on the NAV prevailing  on the date of maturity) at maturity  all features  right and benefits  automatically seized. The instant case  on 31.03.2018 the fund  value of the policy was  42.42. So, that amount was  paid to the complainant  on receipt  of the communication  from the complainant  the OPs informed  that the fund  value of Rs.10914.37 as on 30.08.2015 along with  interest  could be paid . The OPs further paid  interest of Rs.2130 from 25.07.2018 to 29.09.2020 on Rs.10914.37. So, the  OPs acted  fairly  and as per terms and conditions  of the policy . The OPs claimed  that there is no  cause of action against  the OPs  to file this complaint.  The OPs also claimed  that the case  is liable to be dismissed  with cost.

The specific case  of the complainant  against the  OPs and the defence case of OP No.2&3&4 led this Commission  to ascertain  the following points for proper adjudication of this case.

Points for Determination

Point No.1.

Whether the  case is maintainable  in its present form and prayer.

Point No.2.

Whether the complainant  is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Point No.3.

          To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.

Decision with Reasons

Point No.1.

The OPs challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that the complainant  is not a consumer . The Life Insurance Scheme is a speculative gain scheme and as such  the complainant is not a consumer.

It is the specific  case of the complainant  as well as  it is the admitted  fact that the complainant purchased  the SBI Life Insurance  Policy  on payment of money and the  OPs accepted  the said  investment  scheme as a seller/service provider . So, the  relation between the  parties comes within the  purview  of the C.P Act.

Ld. Defence Counsel  further argued  that the case  is barred by limitation  on the ground  that the investment  was made  on 31.03.2008 but the  case is filed  in 2020. So, cause of action arose in 2008 and as such it is barred by  limitation.

The argument  is not acceptable  in as much as  the date of investment  cannot be considered as  a date of arising  cause of action. In fact the OPs  considered that on the date of maturity  the OPs alleged  to have not paid  the actual maturity  value and as  such he raised the grievance. The complainant categorically  stated  that the  cause of action arose  on 24.09.2020. After considering  all the documents  it is found that the date of maturity  of the said  policy on 31.03.2018.

 It appears that the complainant raised his grievance  through his letter and annexure-D on 25.04.2018 and 25.06.2018. The OPs company  replied  to the letter  on 31.07.2018. Thereafter,  the grievance remains  continuing  and finally the complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs on 03.08.2020 vide  annexure-E. It is was duly  received  by the OPs  against  which the OPs  replied  on 26.10.2020. So, the cause of action was  till continuing. The present case  is filed on 05.10.2020. Therefore, the case is filed  well within the limitation  period of the  C.P. Act. Accordingly, the case is not barred  by limitation.

Other than  above points  neither  OPs nor  their Ld. Advocate raised any other legal point  regarding maintainability  of the case.

Accordingly, point no.1 is decided  in favour of the complainant and further  held that  the case is not barred under  any provisions of law.

Point No.2&3.

Both the points have close nexus  with each other  and as such  these are taken up together  for brevity and convenience of discussion.

It is the admitted  fact that the  complainant invested  Rs.99,000/- on 07.09.2007 in the SBI Life Unit  Plus-II Single Premium  Plan  with the OPs  and the sum assured is Rs.618750/- for 10 years maturity  term.

The complainant  in order to  establish  the case proved  the following documents.

No.1:- Letter dated 29.09.2007 with proposal  no.25869989.

No.2:-  Copy of letter dated 31.07.2018 by the OPs to the complainant.

No.3:- Copy of letter  by OPs to the  complainant  dated 21.12.2017.

No.4:- Copy of letter dated 04.05.2018.

No.5:- Copy of transaction  cum unit  statement dated 03.05.2018.

No.6:- Copy of letter  by OPs to the  complainant dated 31.03.2008.

No.7:- Copy of terms  and conditions of the policy.

No.8:- Copy of acknowledgment .

No.9:- Copy of Pass Book.

No.10:- Copy of Legal notice  dated 03.08.2020 along with  postal receipt .

No.11:- Copy of complaint letter to the CAB, Nadia dated 10.02.2020.

The OPs  also proved  the following documents.

Annexure-A:- SBI Life Insurance  Company Unit Plus-II proposal form  in the name of the complainant.

Annexure-B:- Is  the  office copy of the  Policy  SBI Life  policy.

Annexure-C:- Is the transaction  cum Unit statement dated 03.05.2018.

Annexure-D:- Is the  letter by the complainant  to the OPs dated 25.06.2018.

Annexure-ii:- Is the letter to the complainant  by the OPs dated 04.05.2018.

Annexure-iii:- Is the letter by the  OPs to the complainant  dated 31.07.2018.

Annexure-F:- Is the letter by  OPs to the complainant  dated 25.08.2020.

Annexure-i:-  Is the  letter  by the OPs to the complainant  dated 26.10.2020.

After assessing  the entire evidence  it transpires  that the complainant  invested a sum of Rs.99,000/- with a basic  sum assured of Rs.618750/- for 10 years upto 31.03.2018 with the OPs company.  The date of investment  is 31.03.2008 and as such  the date of maturity  is 31.03.2018.

The complainant  categorically stated  in the complaint  that the OPs  credited  to his savings account  a sum of Rs.42/- on 21.12.2017 by converting  the actual investment  of Rs.99,000/- to Rs.42/- which is  absurd  and unfair trade practice.

The OPs defence case  is that the date of maturity  of the policy  is 31.03.2018.

So, if a policy matured  on 31.03.2018  how it could be ended  in 2017 prior  to its maturity.

The Ops took the defence plea  that if the fund value falls  below Rs.10,000/- at the time of deduction of the charges the policy will immediately  terminate  and the fund value  without deduction  of any charge will be  paid to the policy holder  and the rights  and benefits  under the policy will seized.

It is not clear  as to how the said fund value  fell down  below Rs.10,000/-. The complainant  rightly  argued that it was never informed  to the complainant  that the  fund value came  below Rs.10,000/-.

From the  pleadings  of the OPs  it further transpires .

As per para 6 of the W/V the OPs stated inter-alia  that the date of maturity  of the policy  was 31.03.2018 whereas  on 30.08.2015 the fund value  was Rs.10914.37. So, in the instant case clause 4(H) of the policy terms and conditions  is not applicable against the  complainant because as per  the specific pleadings  of the OPs on 30.08.2015 the fund value was  Rs.10914.37 which is above Rs.10,000/-. So, it cannot be  considered  that the value of the  investment  of the complainant fell down  below  Rs.10,000/- for which the  benefits  of the policy could be  seized.

It is settled position of law that admitted  facts  need not be  proved. Since  the OPs have  categorically  admitted  that  on 30.08.2015 the fund value  was 10914.37 , so the complainant  was entitled to get the benefits  of the scheme as per  the terms and conditions .

The complainant  in course evidence  proved the transaction  cum units statement  wherefrom  it is revealed  that as on 31.03.2018 the NAV of the equity  fund is Rs.84.20 and NAV of point is 30.50. So, the  claim that in equity  fund of 1810.98 units  of Rs.31.86 was valued of Rs.84.20 and in Bond  fund of 3009.79 units  of Rs.12.78 each, valued  for Rs.30.50 as on 31.03.2018. So, as per the  statement  the invested  value  of RS.99,000/- was converted  into Rs. 244283.11.

The claim of the  complainant  is legitimate  and the OPs could not  discard  it.

It is  further found that the  OPs never informed  to the complainant  through statement  that his fund value reduced  to less than  10,000/- at any time before the maturity of the said policy.

The OPs  also never  informed  to the complainant  about the breakup  of the fund value from time to time.

The complainant himself  argued in this case  and submitted  that he issued  legal notice  claiming  that the NAV was Rs.2,44,384/-. Having received  the said legal notice  the OPs  silently  deposited  Rs.13,835.42 in his account in order to safe their face.

In reply  to the said legal notice  of the complainant  it is also found that the OPs categorically  admitted  in para 9 of the said reply to the legal notice  dated 26.10.2020 that on review  of the  case facts it was noted that the fund value was Rs.10,914.37 as on 30.08.2015. So, in the said reply to legal notice , it is also admitted  fact that the  fund value  as on 30.08.2015 was more than  Rs.10,000/-.

 The complainant  also argued that the OPs deliberately  could not allow to reach  the said investment  money upto the maturity  by deducting  different  charges  as per their wish.

The only  reply given by the  OPs during argument  is that the complainant agreed to invest  in the said fund  after understanding  all the terms and conditions .

The said argument  is not acceptable  in as much as from the defence pleading  and the case record  it is crystal clear that the alleged  reduction of the fund value  less than  Rs.10,000/- could not be  established in the defence case.  All the documents support the claim of the complainant.  In para 6 of  W.V OP also stated that the OP did not terminate the policy and kept  in force as a service gesture.

The said statement is contradictory because sympathy cannot take the specific terms of agreement. If the policy value (NAV) was below Rs.10,000/- then there was no scope  to keep  the policy  in force. It means that the OP arbitrarily acted with the policy.

Thus having  assessed the  entire evidence  in the case record and on the basis  of the observation  made hereinabove  the Commission  comes to the finding  that the complainant  proved the case  against the  OPs upto the hilt.

Accordingly,  point no. 2&3 are answered  in affirmative  and decided  on behalf of the complainant.

In the result  the complaint case succeeds  on contest with cost.

Hence,

                              It is

Ordered

that the complaint case no.CC/128/2020 be and the same is allowed on the contest against OP No.2&3&4 and ex-parte against OP No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand). The complainant Mihir Kumar Mitra do get an award  for a sum of Rs.2,44,283.11 (Rupees two lakh forty four thousand two hundred eighty three and eleven paisa) being the maturity value  of the invest money, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand)  towards compensation for harassment  and mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost. The OPs are jointly and severally  liable to pay the award money . All the OPs are jointly and severally  directed to pay Rs.2,59,283.11 (Rupees two lakh fifty nine thousand two hundred eighty three and eleven paisa)   to  the  complainant  within  30 days  from  the  date of passing the final order  failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @8%  p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation.

All Interim Applications  (I.A) stand disposed of  accordingly.

D.A to note in the trial register.

The case is accordingly disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.                   

Dictated & corrected by me

 ............................................

                PRESIDENT

(Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)                                ................ ..........................................

                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT

                                                                                             (Shri   HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)

I  concur,

  ........................................                                              

          MEMBER                                                                   

(SHRI NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)