Haryana

Karnal

CC/170/2017

Surender Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Prem Singh Kashyap

15 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.170 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 16.05.2017

                                                         Date of decision:15.06.2018

 

Surender Pal son of Shri Dharam Pal resident of Karan Vihar, Karnal, H. No.49/1.                                                                                                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

1.The Senior Branch Manager SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO 144 (IInd Floor) Sector-13 Market, Urban Estate, Karnal.

2. Managing Director and C.E.O. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. And Corporate Office: Natraj, M.V. Road and Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400069.

3. Chairman, State Bank of India, Corporate Centre State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021, Maharashtra (Fax no.022-22742431) (Note: name of Arundhati Bhattacharya was deleted vide order dated 22.2.2018 from OP no.3)

4. Shri T.S. Vijayan, Chairman, IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India), 3^rd floor, Parisharam Bhawan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.

5. Secretary/Special Secretary (Insurance) Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, 3^rd Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

               Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present:  Shri Prem Singh Kashyap Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri N.K. Zak Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                 Shri S.K.Malhotra Advocate for OP no. 3.

                 OPs no.4 and 5 exparte.

 

ORDER:                    

         

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant applied for SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Whole Life Plan and paid the premium of Rs.14,940/-. OPs issued the policy no.35013723308 for the terms of 5 years. Complainant premium amount on 22.09.2011 and rest of the premium due dates were 22/09 and 22/03 every year. Complainant paid the total 5 premium installments with due amount. Due to sudden fall of sickness of the son of complainant he could not deposit the 6^th installments as the son of complainant was having stone in gall Bladder and huge amount was spent in his operation. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs through the agent after 3½ years to deposit the premium but complainant was advised by the agent that there is no need to deposit the rest of premium amount and your whole amount deposited will be returned with interest. The complainant approached to OPs after date of maturity he was informed that his policy is lapsed and flatly refused to pay the deposited amount. At the time of taking the policy, the complainant was assured that if the complainant will deposit the premium for one year and after that if he stop depositing the premium amount, in that condition also he will be paid whole premium amount deposited with interest at the time of maturity of policy. When after the period of 2½ years complainant could not deposit the premium due to the circumstances as narrated above, no notice, reminder of defalcation was served by OPs to complainant clarifying that the policy in question was lapse and he can revived policy or complainant can continue his policy after depositing the remaining installments. The complainant visited to OPs after the period of maturity and demanded the deposited amount but OPs flatly refused for return of the deposited amount. After the advise of OPs complainant filed an application to surrender the policy but OP returned the application with remarks, nothing will be payable at maturity due to the reason 3 years premium not paid. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 5.11.2016 in that regard but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement stating therein that complainant has applied for SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Whole Life policy in his name through proposal no.35QA601556 dated 19.09.2011 with initial proposal deposit of Rs.14,940/-. The mode of payment of premium was half yearly for a term of 5 years under the policy. Accordingly, the policy was issued with policy bearing no.35013723308 with date of commencement 22.09.2011. The basic sum assured under the policy was Rs.1,11,000/- Accidental Death Benefit Rider Sum Assured was Rs.1,11,000/-. The OPs no.1 and 2 have received five half yearly premiums under the policy and the policy lapsed with effect from 22.03.2014. It is further submitted that the dates for payment of renewal premiums are stated in the policy issued to the complainant and hence the company has also no contractual obligation to issue any renewal premium intimation and lapse cum revival intimation to the policy holder. Accordingly, a renewal premium notice dated 5.2.2014 for premium payment due dated 22.03.2014 was issued to the complainant. As the complainant did not pay the premium due on 22.03.2014, the OPs no.1 and 2 had sent lapse intimation notice dated 21.04.2014 and lapse cum revival intimation dated 22.09.2014 to the complainant, but still the complainant did not pay the premium for the due date 22.03.2014 and revived his policy. It is further submitted that as per clause 3 of part III of the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant had an opportunity to get his policy revived within the revival period of three years from the date of first unpaid premium i.e.22.03.2014 and before the date of maturity i.e.22.09.2016 but the complainant did not revive his policy within the stipulated period. In the present case the policy was matured on 22.09.2016 but the policy was not in force it was lapsed since 22.3.2014 and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any benefits on maturity of the policy. The premiums received under the policy have been forfeited. Hence no benefits are payable under the policy.

3.             OP no.3 vide his statement dated 22.2.2018 adopted the written statement of OPs no.1 and 2.

4.             OP no.4 did not appear and sent his reply by post stating therein that OP no.4 merely plays a facilitative role by taking up the complaint with the insurance companies for their resolution and updating the status of complaint but does not adjudicate the complaint. In the instant case, a complaint had been registered in the Integrated Grievance Management System (IGMS) vide token no.11-16-010174 on the basis of the copy of the legal notice dated 5.11.2016 sent to OP no.4. The said complaint was electronically forwarded to the insurer for his resolution and the complaint is an attended to status with the Insurer’ remarks as follows:

        “Legal department replied to the customer through letter dated 21.11.2016 that there is no provision in the terms and conditions of the policy to refund the premium as demanded by the customer. Also company sent the renewal premium notice lapsed cum revival intimation to the customer.”

 It is further submitted that in the present case, the complaint has been registered in IGMS and explanation provided under a system monitored by the OP no.4 i.e. IRDA, no further role of the OP no.4 arises in the matter.

5.             OP 5 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 7.7.2017.

6.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on 17.4.2018.

7.             On the other hands OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ms. Shanya K P Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7 and closed the evidence on 10.5.2018.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             The pleadings of the parties clearly shows that it is not dispute that the complainant had taken the policy no.35013723308 namely SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Whole Life policy from OPs no.1 and 2 with half yearly premium for a term of 5 years and the date of commencement was 22.09.2011. The next due dates were 22/09 (22^nd September) and 22/03 (22^nd March) every year. It is also not disputed that the complainant had deposited total 5 premium installments.

10.            According to the complainant, he could not deposit the 6^th installment due to illness of his son who had stone in his gall bladder. It is contended by the complainant that thereafter the complainant contacted the agent of OP after 3½ years to deposit the premium amount but the complainant was advised by the said agent that there is no need to deposit the rest of the premium. It is further contended by the complainant that when the complainant had taken the policy in question he was assured that if he (complainant) stopped to deposit the premium after depositing one year premium, in that condition, he would be paid whole premium amount deposited with interest at the maturity. These contentions of the complainant have no force. Because firstly the complainant had received the policy in question which contained the terms and conditions of the policy including the terms for the deposit of the premium. Secondly, the complainant has neither impleaded the said agent as party in the present complaint, who could replied about these contentions of the complainant nor the name of said agent has been disclosed in the complaint. So, allegations levelled by the complainant against the agent are neither tenable in the eyes of law nor believable.

11.            The next contention of the complainant that when the complainant could not deposit the premium due after 2½ years, no notice or reminder was issued by the OP to the complainant clarifying that his (complainant) policy has lapsed and he can revived the same. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that as the complainant had received the policy which contained all the terms and condition regarding deposit of due premium and as to how the policy can be revived in case of lapse condition. Moreover, it is admitted by the complainant that rest of the premium due dates were 22/09 and 22/03 every year. Therefore, there was no need of any notice by the OP about the same. But inspite of that, the OPs no.1 and 2 have written letters to the complainant about the same. To prove the same, OPs no.1 and 2 produced the copies of these letters Ex.O-3 to Ex.O-5. Letter Ex.O-3 is dated 5.2.2014 which was written by OPs no.1 and 2 to the complainant about the next due date of premium which was 22.3.2014 and after grace period the same was 21.4.2014. When the complainant did not deposit the premium upto 21.4.2014, the OPs no.1 and 2 gave intimation to the complainant regarding  lapse of the policy vide letter dated 21.4.2014 Ex.O-4. Even the OPs no.1 and 2 gave intimation about revival of the lapsed policy vide letter dated 22.09.2014 Ex.O-5. Hence this contention of the complainant that no notice was issued by the OPs no.1 and 2 about due date, lapsing of policy or revival of the policy is against the facts, so has no force and the same is hereby repelled.

12.            The learned counsel for complainant also argued that that the complainant filed the application to surrender value but the same was returned with remarks that nothing will be payable at maturity due to the reason  three years premium not paid. From the complaint it is itself clear that the OP had given the reasons on the said application. It is also mentioned here that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy acquires the surrender value only if at least 3 full policy year’s premium have been paid. As already stated above, the complainant had deposited only five half yearly premium of the policy and this fact clearly shows that the complainant has not deposited 3 full policy year’s premium, so the policy did not acquire any surrender value. Hence this contention of complainant is repelled hereby.

13.            The complainant obtained the policy from SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. OPs no.1 and 2 but the complainant has impleaded State Bank of India, IRDA and Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services as OPs no.3 to 5. The complainant has not given any reason for what purpose OPs no.3 to 5 impleaded as parties. Therefore, OPs no.3 to 5 were impleaded without any cause of action against them, hence the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.

14.            In view of above discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.06.2018                                                             

                                                                 President

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                           Member