State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Shashi Agrawal vs Sbi Life Insu.Co. on 19 December, 2019
Daily Order M. P. STATE CON0SUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2012 (Arising out of order dated 20.11.2012 passed in C. C. No.228/2012 by District Forum, Satna) SMT. SHASHI AGRAWAL, W/O LATE SHRI GOVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL, R/O AGRAWAL MARKET, HANUMAN CHOWK, SATNA, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.). .... APPELLANT. Versus BRANCH MANAGER, SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, EKTA TOWER, THIRD FLOOR, REWA ROAD, SATNA (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE : HON'BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the respondent. O R D E R (Passed On 19.12.2019)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 20.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the 'Forum') in C. C. No. 228/2012 whereby the complaint filed by her has been dismissed.
2. The complainant had filed a complaint before the Forum against the opposite party-insurance company seeking refund of premium of Rs.35,000/- deposited by her towards obtaining the insurance policy which she alleged was wrongly issued to her, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost.
3. The opposite party -insurance company resisted the complaint stating that the complainant had opted for SBI Life Money Back Plan and had paid requisite premium in that regard. Accordingly, policy was issued in her favour. The complainant failed to act in the free look period for cancellation of the policy, therefore, she is not entitled for refund of the premium deposited by her.
4. Heard. Perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant vehemently argued that the proposal form for obtaining the insurance policy was not filled by the complainant. The -2- agent filled the proposal form and had filled wrong information regarding the specification of the insurance policy. The complainant intended to obtain insurance cover on the basis of one time premium of Rs.35,000/-. When she became aware of the fact that annual premium of Rs.35,000/- has to be paid for 15 years, is the aforesaid insurance cover, she chose to opt out of the insurance policy issued by the respondent. She had received the insurance policy sent by the respondent on 13.03.2011. She wrote written objection seeking cancellation of the aforesaid policy issued in her name on 20.03.2011 to the opposite party/respondent. The objection was well within free look period and was therefore justified. The opposite party/respondent had wrongfully issued the aforesaid insurance policy in the appellant's name and have been wrongful further in not cancelling the same despite categorical objection raised by her in this regard.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent-insurance company vehemently argued that the complainant/appellant had submitted proposal bearing no.147113480 in SBI Life Money Back Plan. Basic sum assured under the policy was Rs.4,20,000/-with yearly premium instalment of Rs.34,571/- for a term of 15 years. The policy was issued based on duly filled and signed proposal form and the policy document was duly issued to the complainant/appellant along with terms and conditions of the policy. He further argued that if the complainant/appellant was not satisfied with the insurance policy issued in her name, she could have specifically approached the opposite party/respondent-insurance company for free look cancellation request within stipulated time frame. The respondent has never received any request for free look cancellation as alleged by the complainant/appellant. The complainant/appellant has made specific allegations against the agent who had sourced the policy. The respondent-insurance company is not responsible for any act of commission or omission on part of the agent. The policy was issued based on duly signed proposal form. The complainant/appellant is bound by the contents of the proposal form, she had signed. On the basis of the aforesaid, the respondent cannot be held deficient in service in not refunding the premium which the appellant had paid towards the insurance policy.
7. As were carefully peruse the proposal form filled by the complainant for SBI Life Money Back Plan, it had been specified in column 4-Details of the insurance cover proposed, wherein the complainant/appellant has opted for Option 2 i.e. term of 15 years.
-3-The premium payment mode is specified as yearly. Admittedly, the proposal form has been signed by the complainant/appellant.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondent had sent the insurance policy along with terms and conditions vide their speed-post, dated 22.02.2011. The appellant has alleged that she had written a letter to the respondent insurance company regarding cancellation of the policy issued in her favour. The proposer had an option to return the policy and to cancel the insurance cover within 15 days from receipt of policy document. The written objection from the appellant bears no receiving from the respondent insurance company. Evidently her request for cancellation of insurance cover could be considered in the free look time period of 15 days. There is no substantiating evidence from the complainant/appellant in support of her contention that the policy document sent by the opposite party/respondent vide speed post dated 22.02.2011 was received by her on 13.03.2011.
9. The complainant/appellant has not challenged by way of counter affidavit the specific denial of the opposite party/respondent in their written statement regarding receiving any free look cancellation request from the complainant/appellant.
10. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, since it has not been established that the complainant/appellant had requested for free look cancellation of the policy issued in her name, within specified time frame, the insurance company cannot be held deficient in service for not refunding the insurance premium paid by her.
11. In our considered view, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. We affirm the impugned order. This appeal, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
(DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK) (PRABHAT PARASHAR) PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER