IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint has filed by Devaraj.L, S/o Lingaiah aged 50 years resident of Kushalnagara, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,57,310/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of closure of the housing loan account on master policy dated 01.07.2014 till the date of repayment + compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the complaint.
2. The opposite party Nos.1,2,4 and 5 are the officers of State Bank of India Life Insurance Company Ltd., and opposite party No.3 is the Manager, State Bank of India, Kushalnagara, Somwarpet Taluk.  The complainant was employee of CHESCOM branch at Kushalnagara and while he was in service had availed loan of Rs.13,00,000/- from the opposite party No.3 bearing account No.641043944406.  The complainant was retired in the month of July, 2017 and repaid the entire loan balance amount on getting service benefits.  On perusal of the loan ledger extract maintained by the opposite party No.3 a sum of Rs.1,20,242/- kept in reservation without intimation.  Later on the opposite party No.3 informed that said amount is deducted towards the loan insurance premium.  On the date of availing loan, the opposite party No.3 did not informed about the insurance policy or its conditions.  Later he came to know the deduction of premium amount from his salary to the RINN Suraksha Insurance Master policy No.70000011607.  Thereafter, the complainant has wrote letters to the opposite party No.3 to have return all the amount deducted from his salary towards premium but it has credited a sum of Rs.30,690/- out of Rs.1,88,000/-.  Hence, this complaint.
3. The opposite party Nos.1,2,4 and 5 appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version contending that S.B.I. Life Insurance Company Ltd., offers insurance coverage to individuals and group of individuals in accordance with the provisions of the Insurance Act.  In the group insurance, the privity of contract is in between master policy holder and the insurer.  In the case on hand master policy holder is S.B.I. Kushalnagara branch i.e. opposite party No.3.  The terms and conditions of the master policy are binding on all the insured members.  The complainant had applied for insurance cover vide membership firm dated 01.07.2014 under RINN  Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme and master policy No.70000011607 issued to opposite party No.3.  The risk was commenced from 02.07.2014 for a sum of Rs.14,24,525/- and an amount of Rs.24,905/- was received towards premium and service tax.  The periodical payment of premium was early and the premium paying term was five years.  The insurance cover was granted passed on the declaration in the membership firm and believing the same, the complainant was issued certificate of insurance which contained the premium certificate and summary of features of the group insurance scheme.  The complainant has given authorization to deduct renewal premium from his S.B. account No.6414344451 and accordingly for four years premium has been received by this company a sum of Rs.24,905/- for each year.  It is further case of opposite parties that on the application submitted by the complainant surrender for Rs.30,690/- as credited to the complainant’s account maintained in opposite party No.3 bank on 11.07.2018.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 or unfair trade practice.  The opposite parties have issued certificate of insurance covering risk for sum assured of Rs.14,24,525/-.  The complainant has paid four years of premium under the insurance cover.  The policy holder has enjoyed the risk covered till the date of surrender. Had there been any unfortunate death claim on the life of the insured, the opposite parties would have honoured the claim for the entire insurance amount.  The total premium received under the policy is Rs.92,650/- and the surrender value is determine only on the basic premium and not on the service tax component which has to be paid to the Government of India.  The surrender value has paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy only. The last contention of opposite parties that complaint is barred by limitation.
4. The opposite party No.3 has also filed written version supporting the defence of opposite party Nos.1,2,4 and 5. 
5. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exhibits P.1 to 31.  That one Dhanya.K.P. authorized representative of opposite party Nos.1,2,4 and 5 filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked Exhibits R.1 to R/4 documents.  That one Varadaraj Malya, Manager of opposite party No.3 filed their affidavit evidence. 
6. We have heard oral arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the complainant and opposite parties and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opposite parties non-return of amount of Rs.1,57,310/- amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

7. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:-In the negative
• Point No.2:-In the negative for the below;

R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1 and 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that master policy has been issued to opposite party No.3 and complainant was not aware of the contents of policy document.  The opposite party No.3 even after filing the surrender application has recovered the premium amount.  As against this, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that housing loan was sanctioned to the complainant with a condition to pay the said amount in a period of 15 years.  The complainant has submitted application for surrender all the policy in 2018 though it is end term was till 2027.  The policy issued to the opposite party No.3 in which the complainant is member of the policy no profit oriented policy. 
9. The complainant has not disputed availment of housing loan of Rs.14,00,000/- and add from the opposite party No.3 in the year 2014.  The complainant was employee of CHESCOM and during his service had applied for housing loan and he signed on the complaint in English.  It shows that complainant being an educated person.  The complainant has produced Exhibit P.21 certificate of insurance issued by the opposite party Nos.1,2,4, and 5 wherein the complainant claim is mentioned as member. In this it is mentioned as date of issue of insurance certificate is 14^th July, 2014, master policy holder is State Bank of Mysuru (India), Kushalanagar.  Further it contained policy number, membership insured initial sum assured amount of Rs.14,24,525/- member policy end date 02.07.2027.  Policy term 156 months.  Then it contained loan details, loan term 156 months yearly premium and Rs.22,165/- +  service tax, premium paying term is five years.  The complainant has produced Exhibit P.22 first premium receipt dated 02.07.2014 for Rs.24,905/-.  The Exhibit P.23 is key features of State Bank of India Life Insurance Policy.  Exhibit P.24 is table of sum assured benefit of 156 months commencing from 02.07.2014 to 27.07.2027.  Exhibit P.26 is surrender request form submitted by complainant dated 30.06.20185 and Exhibit P.27 is direct credit mandate.  From perusal of Exhibits P.1 to P.25 it is cleared that the opposite parties have served certificate of insurance to the complainant immediately after issue of policy to cover his life risk during the housing loan period.  Opposite parties have produced Exhibit R.2 SBI Life Suraksha Membership Form submitted by the complainant on 02.07.2014.  The complainant has not denied submitting Exhibit R.2 membership Form and issue of certificate of insurance and sale of features of the policy.  The complainant being educated man he would opposed to become member of S.B.I. Life Insurance Policy on 02.07.2014.  Even in Exhibits P.1 to P.23.  The opposite parties had given option to not to give consent for the policy within 15 days from the date of issue of policy dated 14.07.2014.  The complainant has not given any objections for issue of policy and also paying first premium amount of Rs.24,905/- vide Exhibit P.2w2.  Therefore, there is no force in the contention of complainant that he was un aware of the S.B.I. Life RINN Suraksha Policy covering his life risk during the repayment of housing loan.
10.  The opposite parties have deducted four yearly premium amount and send to the opposite party Nos.1,2,4 and 5.  The learned counsel for the complainant by relaying upon the entry in Exhibit P.13 statement of account of the complainant submitted that even after closure of loan Rs.1,20,242/- is debited to the account of complainant.  Exhibit P.13 indicates that as on 24.11.2017 a sum of Rs.1,20,242/- has been payable by the complainant since it is towards interest on 24.11.2017 the opposite party No.3 has credited Rs.1,20,242/- to the account of complainant bearing No.6414394451 and showed balance as Zero.  The said entry pertains to S.B.I. Suraksha.  The opposite party No.3 has not disclosed via transfer of any amount to the account of complainant after closure of the loan.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case of Hucchappa and another Vs Union of India and others ILR 2007 Karnataka 602 wherein the dispute was in respect of forfeiture of the premium amount not paid for full three years.  In this case there is no question of forfeiture of premium amount.  As such the above citation is not helpful to the complainant. 
12. According to the opposite parties four yearly premium of Rs.24,905/- has collected from the complainant by debiting to his loan account Rs.92,650/- after deducting taxes basic premium  was Rs.88,660/-.  According to Exhibit P.23 Key features of the policy is that no maturity benefit available under this plan.  Clause 20 of the policy says that in the event of death of the life assured during the term of the policy provided all the due premiums have been fully paid a sum assured applicable for the month and year of the death as per the sum assured schedule as mentioned in the Annexure is payable irrespective of the actual amount outstanding as per the loan repayment schedule.  Clause 20(3) says surrender benefit.  If member requests for surrender of the insurance cover in writing at the point of time after first policy year provided atleast first policy year premium are paid.  The surrender value available in this plan is 50%.  Premium paid x unexpired term /total term.  The total term of the housing loan was 13 years but the complainant has repaid the entire loan in the year 2017 – 10 years before its expiry period i.e. 2017.  The complainant has paid four years premium out of five years premium and the opposite parties have paid the surrender benefit as per the Clause 20 (3) of the terms and conditions of the policy.  If the complainant had waited till expiry of the term of the policy 2027 would have get entire premium amount and other benefits.  Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and on the contrary, they have paid the surrender value in terms of the policy conditions.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for.   Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Sri Devaraj.L. is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 24^thDAY OF JANUARY, 2019)

                                                   (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                        PRESIDENT 

                                               (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                          MEMBER