State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sarabinderjeet Singh on 9 June, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.78 of 2022
Date of Institution : 07.02.2022
Reserved on : 26.05.2023
Date of Decision : 09.06.2023
SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, inside District Shopping
Complex, Near MK Hotel Block B, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through
its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
........Appellant
Versus
Sarabinderjeet Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Bhola Singh Sandhu,
resident of H.No.413, Green Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. 9855483783.
.....Respondent
Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the order
dated 28.12.2021 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Yagyashree Singh, Advocate for Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : None
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The appellant/opposite party i.e. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager has filed the present 2 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') to challenge the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as the "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent- complainant Sarabinderjeet Singh was disposed of with the directions to the complainant to provide the correct email id to the OP within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and also directed the OP to correct the email id in the policy after receiving the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of correct email id from the complainant. A further direction was also issued by the District Commission that since the complainant had not paid the premium amount for renewal of the policy for a period almost three years and for that reason the OP had been directed to collect the premium amount for three years in total five installments starting from the date of decision and thereafter on completion of all five installments of premium, the complainant was held liable to pay the future premium regularly and thereafter the policy in dispute will remain in force.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3First Appeal No.78 of 2022
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant before the District Commission and are also necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent/complainant obtained one regular premium payment life insurance policy from the OP bearing customer No.50001437 having policy number IN730000510 namely SBI Life Smart Money Back Gold in the month of December 2017 for a total sum assured of Rs.4,78,000/- The insured paid installment of Rs.54,000/- on 23.12.2017 on commencing of risk. After purchasing said policy from the OP it came to the notice of the complainant that OP had mentioned wrong email ID as [email protected]. On coming to know about said mistake committed by OP, the complainant approached the OP and requested to make necessary correction but still it was not corrected. Instead of correcting the mistake, OP asked the complainant to withdraw the policy and receive the premium amount to get the fresh policy. The complainant accepted the version of the OP and approached with the request to refund the premium amount of installment of Rs.54,000/-. Further it was mentioned that OP had put off the matter on one pretext or the other and no attention was paid to the request made by the complainant.
4. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' as well as 'unfair trade practice' on the part of OP it was stated to be a case of harassment, mental agony as well as inconvenience to the complainant and thereafter the complainant filed the complaint with the following prayer:-
4First Appeal No.78 of 2022
"That OP be directed to cancel the said regular premium payment life insurance policy and to refund the above said amount of Rs.54,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and the opposite party may also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation to the complainant besides the costs of litigation. Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under law and equity may also be granted in favour of complainant and against the opposite party in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
5. Upon issuing notice to OP the written version of complainant was filed before the District Commission wherein certain preliminary objections were raised. It was also mentioned in the reply that the OP was ready to do the necessary correction in the email ID but it was the complainant himself who did not provide the correct email ID to OP. It was also mentioned that the complainant never submitted any request for said correction. Even in the reply to legal notice, the complainant was advised to apply for correction with proof but still the complainant did not apply for said correction with the supporting documents. It was also stated that the complaint was premature and there was no provision in the policy for cancellation of policy or refund of the amount as prayed in the complaint. It was mentioned that there was no reason to cancel the policy. The complainant had failed to prove any 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP and other allegations mentioned in the complaint were controverted and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5 First Appeal No.78 of 2022
6. On appraisal of contents of the complaint and reply thereof and also by considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the complaint was disposed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.12.2021, the appellant/OP-SBI Life Insurance Co. Limited has filed the present appeal by raising a number of grounds.
8. Ms. Yagyashree Singh Advocate, proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra Advocate counsel for the appellant submits that the District Commission has wrongly directed the appellant/OP to correct the email ID of the complainant whereas in the reply it was specifically mentioned that the OP was willing to correct the email ID of the complainant but it was the complainant himself who did not turn up to provide correct email ID with proof. The appellant never received any request for correction of the email ID. The OP received a legal notice dated 16.05.2018 but no correct email ID was mentioned in the legal notice. In reply OP had requested the complainant to contact the nearest branch and to submit the signed written request for change in contact details for making necessary corrections in the email ID but still the complaint was filed.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration that the policy had lapsed and the complainant did not bother to revive the policy. The District Commission has not 6 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 appreciated Revival Clause as the revival was subject to underwriting of risk by the appellant on receipt of unpaid premiums alongwith interest with good health declaration and other necessary requirements. The revival of the policy was a de novo Contract. The District Commission has also not taken into consideration the terms and conditions of the policy but directions have been issued to the appellant to accept the premiums and to keep the policy in force which is against the legal Contract and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Terms and conditions of the policy have not been taken into consideration and directions have been issued which are contrary to the said terms and conditions. There was a grace period of 30 days available to the insured to pay the renewal premium. As per terms and conditions of policy the complainant was having revival period of two years from the date of first unpaid premium. In case the policy holder had not paid the premium within the grace period and had not revived the policy during the revival period, nothing was to be paid to the policy holder. The respondent/complainant had paid only the initial premium and renewal premium has also not been paid by him, the policy was to be lapsed as it was not revived by the respondent/complainant within a period of two years and it was ultimately terminated at the end of revival period. Moreover, the Proposal Form is the basis of Contract of Insurance which has been duly signed by the complainant. Learned proxy counsel has also relied upon judgments i.e. "Life Insurance Corporation of India & another Vs. Sunita" 2022(1) 7 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 SCC-68, "LIC of India Vs. Ani P Tadkalkar" R.P. No.663 of 1994, decided on 08.11.1995 and "LIC Vs. Mani Ram" III (2005) CPJ 31 (SC) in support of his arguments.
10. Inspite of service none has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant.
11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and we have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the District Commission as well as evidence/documents available on the file. We have also carefully perused the complaint of the complainant.
12. Facts regarding obtaining the policy by the complainant and payment of first premium and issuance of policy documents are not in dispute.
13. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the District Commission has wrongly directed the appellant to correct the email id of the complainant and to collect the premium amount for the period of three years in five installments whereas the policy had already been lapsed as it was terminated on the expiry of revival period i.e. 23.12.2020.
14. As per the argument of the appellant/OP the complainant had not paid the first renewal premium due on 23.12.2018 and second renewal premium which was due on 23.12.2019. The policy was not revived by the complainant within a within a period of two 8 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 years. Meaning thereby the policy was in lapsed condition as it stood terminated, as per the terms and conditions of the policy but the District Commission has not taken into consideration this fact while deciding the complaint.
15. Provision 50 of The Insurance Act, 1938 [as amended by Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002] is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"50. An insurer shall, before the expiry of three months from the date on which the premiums in respect of a policy of life insurance were payable but not paid, give notice to the policy-holder informing him of the options available to him unless these are set forth in the policy."
16. The appellant/OP has not placed on record any evidence/document neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission with regard to information sent to the respondent/complainant regarding non-payment of due premium, lapse condition of the policy and its termination in view of Provision 50 of the Insurance Act.
17. In view of facts as mentioned above, we find no force in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Fact of non-payment of premiums by the respondent/complainant was in the knowledge of the District Commission and after considering the averments of the parties and document available on the record a direction was issued to collect the premium amount for the period of 9 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 three years in five installment starting from the date of decision and on completion of all five installments of premium, the complainant was held liable to pay the future premium regularly. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in the present case.
18. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 16.05.2018 upon the OP and the relevant paras of the legal notice are reproduced as under:-
"2. That now it has come to the notice of my client that you have mentioned wrong email id of my client as [email protected] and after coming to know about the above said fact my client approached you and requested to correct the said mistake, but it was stated by you that the said mistake could not be rectified now and rather you suggested my client to withdraw the said policy and receive back the premium amount and then to get issue fresh policy."
19. From perusal of said legal notice, it is apparent that the email id of the complainant was not corrected inspite of making requests and rather OP advised him to withdraw the said policy. Meaning thereby the OP had not corrected the email id despite repeated requests. The complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission on 27.11.2018 and reply thereof was prepared by the OP on 24.01.2019. In reply dated 05.06.2018 (Ex.C-
1) to the legal notice, OP had mentioned that the Company had 10 First Appeal No.78 of 2022 issued the policy as per the information provided in your Proposal Form.
20. We have also perused the Proposal Form Ex.OP-1. At page 58 of 76 (page No.91 of the file of the District Commission) the correct id has been mentioned as [email protected] whereas in the policy document it has been mentioned as [email protected]. On perusal of Proposal Form, it is apparent that the agent and the officials of the OP-Insurance company had failed to compare the email id of the complainant with the Proposal Form and wrongly changed the letter 'F' with 'L'. Instead of correcting his mistake, they had advised complainant to contact their nearest branch whereas they could have rectified the mistake after comparing the email id with Proposal Form.
21. In view of detailed discussion and the reasons mentioned, we find no merit in the contentions raised by learned proxy counsel for the appellant/OP. The order passed by the District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties as well as contentions and the appeal of the appellant/OP being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
22. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
11First Appeal No.78 of 2022
23. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER June 09, 2023 (MM)