DATE OF FILING : 09-10-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 25-11-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31-10-2014.
1. Sri Samir Kumar Koley,
son of Sri Sital Chandra Koley,
residing at Balitikuri, Bakultala, P.O. Balitikuri,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711 113.
2. Smt. Mithu Koley,
wife of Sri Samir Kumar Koley,
residing at Balitikuri, Bakultala, P.o. Balitikuri,
P.S. Jagachha, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711 113. ---------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. The Branch Manager,
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Howrah Branch Office,
` 168, G.T. Road ( South ), Panchawati Apartment,
P.S. Shibpur, District – Howrah,
PIN – 711102.
2. The Regional Director,
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
11, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Road,
Kolkata – 7000 17.
3. The Chief Operation Officer,
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre,
Kapas Bhavan, Plot No. 3A, Sector 10, CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai – 400 614. -----------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. Complainants, Sri Samir Kumar Koley and Smt. Mithu Koley by filing a
petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to transfer the insurance policies in question to pension scheme policies or to refund Rs. 1,00,000/- so paid by the complainants as premiums, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
2. Brief fact of the case is that on being persuaded by the agent of o.ps., complainants invested in four life insurance policies of o.ps. on payment of premium of Rs. 50,000/- in total per year. The policy documents were also issued by the o.ps. being nos. 1) 35013420602 ( date of commencement- 10-09-2011 ), 2) 35013421009 ( Date of commencement - 10-09-2011, 3. 14041337206 ( Date of commencement 18-07-2011), 4) 14041897606 ( date of commencement 18-07-2011). The first three policies were issued in the name of the complainant no. 1 and the last i.e., 4th policy was issued in the name of the complainant no. 2 vide Annexures. It is alleged by the complainants that they made these investments on being assured by the agent of o.ps. that under those policies they were required to pay premium only for three years. It was also said by the agent that after three years, complainant no. 1 shall receive the total amount deposited along with interest in the next three years, i.e., in the 4th, 5th & 6th year from the inception of the policies. Thereafter, from seventh year onwards, complainant no. 1 shall be entitled to a monthly pension till he attains his 99th year. So, due to this pension benefit, complainants became very much willing to invest in those policies. So, they paid 2nd year’s premium in 2012 for those policies amounting to Rs. 50,000/- in total and became very much hopeful about their lucrative return. At that time, from friends circle, he came to know that those policies do not have that pension benefits and the premium paying tenure is not at all three years but 7 years. Complainants became really helpless as because complainant no. 1 is only a door to door electrician and they would not be able to pay the annual premium of Rs. 50,000/- for 7 years. So immediately, they sent a letter to o.p. no. 1 on 23-07-2013. But o.ps. remained silent. Again on 10-09-2013 complainants sent an E-mail to o.p. no. 1 with the request to convert those policies into pension scheme. But those policies remained as regular premium paying policies till the filing of this case. O.p. no. 1 even sent a letter to complainant on 23-09-2013 stating therein that complainants have lost their chance to cancel the policies which was required to be done within the free look period of 15 days after the receipt of the policy documents. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative the instant petition was filed by the complainants with the aforesaid prayers.
3. Notices were served. They appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version and the annexures filed by o.ps. and noted its contents. We have also gone through affidavit- in-reply filed by the complainant. O.ps. have submitted the copies of all four proposal forms duly singed by the complainants with all details. As per the proposal forms, o.ps. have invested complainants’ fund in four policies of two types – i) Money Back Option 1 and 2) SUBH NIVESH ENDOWMENT PLAN. And each policy document is accompanied with policy terms and conditions as well as a covering letter where it is written that the policies are regular premium payment insurance policies. And in all cases, due date of last premium is either in 2020 or in 2021. It is also stated by the o.ps. that the complainants have paid the 2nd year’s premium of Rs. 50,000/- in total for all four policies. So, they have agreed to the term and conditions of the policies. Now, they cannot claim that they were misled by any one on behalf of the o.ps. It is also categorically denied by o.ps. that the complainants have not received the policy documents in time. If they did not receive the same in time, how they deposited the 2nd annual premium ? But here we take a pause. It is our common experience that we always keep our faith on agents. Even we handover insurance premium cheques to the agent regularly. It is the agents who are considered to be the face of the insurance companies. Quite often, we see that agents have misled the consumers for their own interest. They are to give business to the insurance companies to protect their agency. So, by hook or crook, they make the people interested about the investment with this hope that once a contract is made, people would be compelled to continue. But if a person does not have that capability, how he can continue for a long time ? These kind of agents always adopt unfair means to attract people. O.p., as the insurance company, as the principal, becomes responsible for all misdeeds done by its agents. O.ps. are the service provider and they should always be very loyal to its customers. It is true that at the time of filling up of the proposal forms, agent of o.ps. sometimes becomes the agent of the consumers, too, but it is unofficial. Officially, those agents are engaged by the o.ps. for their business gain. So, for each and every action, o.ps. are vicariously liable. O.ps. have also failed to show us that immediately after the payment of 1st year’s premium for four policies, complainant received the policy documents. At least no proof of delivery of such documents is filed by them. Now, we know that the time has come to change our vision from buyer’s beware to sellers’ venditor. The organizations like o.ps. should be more careful about their reputation, goodwill. Here in this case, they have miserably failed to keep that. Accordingly, we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 371 of 2013 ( HDF 371 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to return the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants within one month from the date of this order and cancel all the policies lying in the names of the complainants with immediate effect.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from the date of this order.
That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., , the amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
