Date of Filing 07.08.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 15.12.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                    …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                           ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com., (ICWA), BL.,                                                             …….MEMBER-II

CC.No.71/2023

THIS FRIDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

Mr.P.R.Ramadass,

No.14, First Main Road,

Sampangi Nagar,

Thiruninravur 602 024.                                                                          ......Complainant.

                                                                        //Vs//

Thiru.Yuvaraj Marunthan,

Investment Desk,

State Bank of India,

Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049.                                                            …..Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                      : Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                  : Mrs.Mahadevi Chidambaram, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.12.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in party in person and Mrs.Mahadevi Chidambaram counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER-I

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to money investment and direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant with interest along with compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. That the complainant is a retired teacher with all old age problems.  On 03.09.2021, the opposite party brain washed the complainant and made him to invest Rs.1,00,000/- without providing any details of investment and its lock in period etc.  They have taken the photo of the complainant in mobile and completed their formalities.  A book let was sent to the complainant by post.  The email address of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the said book let.  The complainant requested the opposite party and Mr.Balaji to refund the money paid by him.  He has written letter to the Manager, SBI Villivakkam branch on 10.05.2022 requesting to refund the amount.  Copy of the above said letter has been forwarded to Regional Director, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited on 11.05.2022.  The complainant sent a letter to Regional Director of RBI wherein it was replied that the said scheme is not come under the purview of RBI. After few days he received a letter from Manager Operations stating that email ID has been corrected. Hence the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

3. That the complainant is maintaining his Pension Account and fixed deposits in the opposite party.  The complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., SBI Life Insurance.  The complainant availed a Retire smart Policy from SBI Life Insurance vide policy No1H419175504 and as per the policy, the complainant must pay Rs.1,00,000/- yearly. The premium paying term was 5 years it was also a lock-in period and the policy term was 10 years.  The complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.09.2021.  as per the policy, if any of the customer disagree with any terms and conditions the customer have the option to return the policy within 15 days of policy sourced through any way other than distance marketing and electronic policies and customer can return the policy within 30 days if it was obtained via distance marketing and electronic policies.  The complainant agreed to the said policy when he has visited branch and the same was confirmed once again through telephone, the complainant consented twice to avail the said policy.  The complainant had a solid free look in period of 30 days for the cancellation of the aforesaid policy. After the expiry of free look period and 6 months the complainant approached the opposite party for the correction of his email ID which was incorrect due to clerical mistake.  The said error has been rectified and the correct email ID has been updated.  After the said event, the complainant has been requesting the opposite party for the cancellation of the policy and to refund the premium amount.   The complainant wrote letters to the SBI Life Insurance for the same.  The SBI Life Insurance vide their letter dated 12.05.2023 has stated that the policy can be surrendered after the completion of five fears and informed the complainant to do the same after the completion of 5 years of lock in period.  The complainant has also addressed the above issue before the RBI vide his letter dated 13.06.2022 and registered a complaint N202223023119525 on 20.07.2022 before the Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman.  The said complaint was not maintainable as it was a service outside the regulatory purview of RBI. The complainant was already informed that as per the terms and conditions of the Retire Smart Policy the policy can be revived only after lock in period of 5 years. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9 were submitted. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant with admissible evidence?

2) If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

5. It is the case of the complainant that he had availed a policy from SBI Life Insurance vide policy No.1H419175504 after the advice of the opposite party.  The complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/-.  After receipt of policy, the complainant came to know that the email address of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned.  Hence he had asked the opposite party and  SBI Life Insurance to rectify the email address and to cancel the policy and refund the premium amount.  There is no response from the opposite party and SBI Life Insurance.  Therefore he issued a letter to Regional Director of RBI, wherein it was replied that this scheme is not come under the purview of RBI.  The Manager of the opposite party sent a letter stating that email address has been corrected.  The opposite party had not refunded the amount paid by the complainant and hence the complaint.

6. To prove the case, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 9 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Policy Preamble, Ex.A2 is the Policy Book, Ex.A3 is the letter issued by the complainant to the Manager, SBI, Villivakkam, Ex.A4 is the copy of letter received from Manager, Branch Operations, Ex.A5 is the copy of letter issued by the complainant to Regional Director, RBI, Ex.A6 is the payment acknowledgement slip, Ex.A7 is the letter from RBI to the complainant, Ex.A8 is the letter issued by the complainant to the Regional Director, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited and Ex.A9 is the Dinamalar news paper clipping.

7. Per contra, the opposite party disputing all the allegations inter alia contended that the complaint is not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary party i.e., SBI Life Insurance.  After knowing the terms and conditions of the policy only the complainant had paid the premium amount.  The opposite party had explained the lock in period and obtained the consent from the complainant.  It is only an afterthought of the complainant that he had asked refund after the lapse of 6 months.  The clerical error of email address has been duly rectified by the opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

8. To refute the claim of the complainant, the opposite party deposed proof affidavit with 2 documents which were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.  Ex.B1 is the copy of prospectus of Retire Smart Plan and Ex.B2 is the copy of policy details sent to the complainant.

9.  It is not disputed that the complainant availed a policy from SBI Life Insurance vide Policy No.H419175504 dated 03.09.2021 by paying a premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The policy document is filed by both the parties vide Ex.A2 and Ex.B2.  On perusal of the policy, it is made clear that the lock in period of the policy is 5 years.  Free look period to cancel the policy is 30 days.  The complainant had not utilized the free look period of 30 days to cancel the policy.  But he issued a letter on 10.05.2022 vide Ex.A3 to the opposite party to correct the email address and refund the amount with interest.  On 12.05.2022 the Manager of SBI Life Insurance replied vide Ex.A4 to the complainant stating that policy could not be surrendered during the lock in period of 5 years.

10. On perusal of the complaint, there is no such specific allegation against the opposite party for deficiency in service.  There is a clerical error happened while mentioning the email address of the complainant in the said policy.  Moreover such error has been rectified by the SBI Life Insurance after receipt of complaint from the complainant.

11. It is made clear that the lock in period is 5 years and the policy can be surrendered only after completion of 5 years.  The complainant being the retired teacher ought to have gone through the policy conditions.  It is not acceptable that he was brain washed by the opposite party.  Moreover the complainant has not impleaded SBI Life Insurance as one of the opposite party in the complaint. Hence the complainant has not established a case against the opposite party for deficiency in service.  No proper averments in the complaint to establish deficiency in service.  The complainant had not substantiated his allegations with proper documentary evidence to show that the opposite party committed deficiency in service.  It is the duty of the complainant to verify the policy documents within the stipulated period.  He had asked to cancel the policy after the lapse of 6 months.  Hence we have come to the conclusion that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service. This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

12. As we have held above the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite party had committed any deficiency in service, hence he is not entitled to get any relief from this Commission.  Thus we answered the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the Member-I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 15^th day of December 2023.

        -Sd-                                              -Sd-                                                               -Sd-                                                                                                             

MEMBER-II                                    MEMBER-I                                                  PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party-

        -Sd-                                                      -Sd-                                                       -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT