Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/372/2019

Col. Yogesh K. Sharma (Retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/372/2019
Date of Institution	:	16/05/2019
Date of Decision	:	11/12/2019

 

Col. Yogesh K. Sharma (Retd.) S/o Dr. M.L. Sharma, aged 67 years, Resident of House No. 452/1, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

The SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 109-110, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Manager.

 

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant took one SBI Life Policy in his name. The Complainant opted single premium payment mode with deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- for a term of 5 years. Accordingly, the Policy bearing No. 35022563601 was issued with insurance cover of Rs.2,64,000/-. The Complainant has alleged that the maturity amount promised was Rs.4,83,500/-, but on maturity, he was offered an amount of Rs.3,17,625/-. However, on being resisted by the Complainant, the Opposite Party without there being any documents submitted by the Complainant, credited an amount of Rs.3,14,448/- in the bank account of the Complainant. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been denied that Rs.4,83,500/- was offered as maturity value under the policy. It has been pleaded that the Policy in question matured on 07.05.2017 and on its maturity, the Opposite Party paid the maturity amount of Rs.3,14,448/- to the Complainant as per the terms & conditions of the policy. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.          The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Learned Counsel for Opposite Party.
7.         Per Annexure C-2, the Complainant opted for single premium mode with a proposal deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- for a term of 5 years. The sum assured was Rs.2,64,000/- and the maturity amount was clearly mentioned as Rs.4,83,500/-.
8.         The allegation of the Complainant is, instead of the promised amount of Rs.4,83,500/-, the Opposite Party paid the maturity amount to the tune of Rs.3,14,448/-, thereby unilaterally deducted an amount of Rs.1,69,052/- therefrom. 
9.         It is also the case of the Complainant that without any document being submitted by him to the Opposite Party for the purpose of getting the maturity amount after the term of 5 years, the Opposite Party on its own deposited an amount of Rs.3,14,448/- in the bank account of the Complainant.
10.         The Opposite Party defended the cause contending that there was no offer of Rs.4,83,500/- as the maturity value under the policy and according to the terms & conditions of the policy in question, the Complainant was only entitled to an amount of Rs.3,14,448/-, which stood credited into his bank account.
11.         Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since the matter was dealt with by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. However, we are not impressed with this limb of argument, in as much as, the covering letter dated 21.01.2019 vide which the Award of the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, was received by the Complainant, which has been placed on record by the Complainant at Annexure C-12, clearly reveals that “in the eventuality of your disagreeing with the enclosed award, you may, however, if you deem fit proper, move a fresh application at any other Forum/Court that may be considered by you as appropriate, against the Insurance Company for its alleged deficiency in service, complained by you”. Hence, it is held that this Forum has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this complaint.
12.         Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party further argued that the complaint is time barred. This objection also needs rejection in view of fact that the maturity amount was paid to the Complainant on 09.05.2017 and aggrieved with the same after receiving the deficit maturity amount; the Complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh in July 2017. The Insurance Ombudsman’s award came in January 2019. Therefore, the complaint is held to be within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13.         So far as the question of the payment of the maturity amount of Rs.3,14,448/- by the Opposite Party is concerned, we do not find any authentic record/document placed on record by the Opposite Party to clarify as to how they have come to the conclusion that the Complainant is entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.3,14,448/-, which amount the Opposite Party had, admittedly, credited into the bank account of the Complainant. Per contra, the document Annexure C-2, placed on record by the Complainant, clearly reveals the maturity amount to be Rs.4,83,500/-. On the strength of this document, the act of Opposite Party for illegally and arbitrarily deducting the payable maturity amount with their own formula, provides that it is deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant and is guilty of unfair trade practice.  
14.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

1. To refund the less amount of Rs.1,69,052/- (Rs.4,83,500/- minus Rs.3,14,448/-) to the Complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policy i.e. 07.05.2017, till it is paid. 

 

2. To pay Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.

 

3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

 

15.         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) from the date of maturity of the Policy i.e. 07.05.2017 till realization and also to pay interest @12% p.a. on the compensation amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) from the date of filing the complaint till its realization, besides paying litigation expenses mentioned at Sr. No.(iii) above.

 

16.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/12/2019	[SURJEET KAUR]	[RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]
	Member	President
“Dutt”