State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company ... vs Neeru Suri on 8 October, 2024
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 87 of 2024 Date of Institution : 27.02.2024 Date of Decision : 08.10.2024 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Reliance Centre, 5th floor, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai)- 400055. Now at unit no. 401-B, 402,403 & 404, 4th floor, Inspire BKC, G-Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 122- 123, 2nd Floor, Sector 17 C, Chandigarh-160017, both through their authorized signatory/ Manager Legal Mr. Swapnil Malvi, Associate Vice President-Legal, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Available at unit no. 401-B, 402,403 & 404, 4th floor, Inspire BKC, G- Block, BKC Main Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. ...Appellants/opposite parties V e r s u s Neeru Suri aged 57 years W/o Dr. Harish Malhotra, resident of House No. 17, Good Earth Colony, Patiala (Punjab). Wrongly written as Neeru Suri D/o Sh. Ram Kumar Suri, resident of House No. 17, Good Earth Colony, Patiala (Punjab). .....Respondent/complainant BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present:- S/Sh.Sanjeev Goyal and Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Amit Kumar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the respondent(s).
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT By this common order, we propose to dispose of the fifteen (15) appeals, filed by the opposite parties/appellants- (Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited), arising out of common order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaints, details of which have been given in the chart below, were partly allowed and the appellants were ordered to refund the entire deposited respective premium amount(s) to the respective respondents alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses. The particulars of the cases are as under:-
S.No C.C. No. Complainant (now respondents) Opposite Parties (Now appellants) Appeal Nos. and filed on 449/2020 Bal Kishan Sharma The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.93 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 373/2021 Daljeet Singh Cheema The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.89 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 374/2021 Daljeet Singh Cheema The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.88 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 375/2021 Daljeet Singh Cheema The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.91 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 376/2021 Daljeet Singh Cheema The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.90 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 377/2021 Daljeet Singh Cheema The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.92 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 389/2021 Neeru Suri The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.87 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 390/2021 Neeru Suri The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.86 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 391/2021 Neeru Suri The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.85 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 392/2021 Harish Malhotra The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.96 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 393/2021 Harish Malhotra The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.95 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 415/2021 Aparna Banerjee D/o Late Haradhan Bhattacharjee The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.99 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 416/2021 Aparna Banerjee D/o Late Haradhan Bhattacharjee The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.98 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 414/2021 Aparna Banerjee D/o Late Haradhan Bhattacharjee The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.97 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 417/2021 Amita Bhattacharjee The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited and Another Appeal No.94 of 2024 Filed on 27.02.2024 Alongwith these appeals, respective applications have been filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the same. Arguments of the contesting parties on these applications were heard.
For the reasons stated in these applications, we are of the considered view that the applicants have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeals within the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, these applications stand allowed and the delay of 52 days in filing these respective appeals is condoned. Accordingly, all these applications stand dispose off. Now coming to the merits of these cases. The facts have been culled out from consumer complaint bearing no.449/2020 titled as Bal Kishan Sharma Vs. The Director, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that he was approached by an agent of the opposite parties for investment scheme which would yield high profits. Being allured by the words of the agents of the opposite parties, the he purchased policy No.53449244 namely "Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Saving Increasing Income Plan" on making payment of premium amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. At that time, it was assured to the complainant by the agent of the opposite parties that the amount paid by him in the shape of premium shall be invested like an FD and only one year premium has to be paid. Later on, when the complainant visited the Branch Office of the opposite parties, it came to his knowledge that the policy term is 12 years and the annual premium of Rs.2.50 lakhs was to be payable for 5 years. Subsequently, when the complainant received a notice of renewal premium of the policy, only then, he came to know that in fact the agent of the opposite parties had mis-sold the policy. Thus, the opposite parties have mis-sold the subject policy by misrepresenting the facts to the complainant just to grab money, knowing fully well that the complainant was a senior citizen even at the time of issuance of the subject policy and he could not have waited for such a long period for the amount which was invested by him under the impression that the same will be refunded to him after three years. Hence consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission. The opposite parties contested the consumer complaint and filed written version, wherein it was stated that the terms and conditions of the policy issued to the complainant was very clear that the premium was payable by the complainant for 5 years and the policy term was for 12 years. It was stated that the complainant has filled the proposal form and on admitting the contents of the same to be correct had appended his signatures on the same. It was averred that the complaint has been filed merely to harass the opposite parties and to gain undue advantage and unjustified money and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed. Similar contentions were raised by the remaining complainants in their complaints, details of which have been given above. The respective complainants filed rejoinders wherein they reiterated their version and controverted those of the opposite parties. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their cases.
The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties, and on going through the material available on record, partly accepted the consumer complaints, referred to above. Hence these appeals.
We have heard the contesting parties and have carefully gone through the material available on the record. Counsel for the appellants, in all these cases, has vehemently contended that that because the respondents have failed to avail option of free look period from the date of receipt of the respective policies, now they are not entitled to refund of the premiums paid and on the other hand are entitled to get surrender value of their respective policies. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the policies in question were mis-sold by the agent of appellants to the respondents qua term of payment of premiums. He further submitted that though it was promised by the agent of the company that the respondents have to make payment of one to three premiums only, yet, they came to know that the polices have been mis-sold to them because later on they were asked to make payment of premium, upto 5 to 12 years, without taking into account the insured's age, financial limits etc. leading to several problems, such as over-insurance, under-insurance, or the inability to claim benefits when needed. He further submitted that even many important columns in the proposal forms were left blank and were filled by the agents of the appellants only and the respondents were not aware of that. It may be stated here that perusal of the insurance policies placed on record established that the same have been sold to the respondents, many of whom are senior citizens without due consideration of their age and financial status, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. Even in some cases, the policies have been sold to the senior citizens mentioning the policy term as 24 years. The insurance company, whose primary responsibility is to offer appropriate and tailored financial products, neglected to properly assess the needs and circumstances of the insured individual. In these cases, not only many of the insured persons were senior citizens, but as per their definite case, most of them are in a vulnerable financial position, making them particularly susceptible to the risks associated with an unsuitable policy. The insurance company failed to exercise the necessary duty of care by not evaluating whether the product was suitable for the respondents or not. Selling an insurance product without taking into account the client's age etc. can lead to several problems, such as over-insurance, under-insurance, or the inability to claim benefits when needed. Especially for senior citizens and persons with financial difficulties, whose financial resources may be limited and whose health might be declining, the consequences of an inappropriate insurance policy can be even more severe, potentially depleting savings or failing to provide adequate coverage when it is most needed. This mis-selling practice not only undermines consumer trust in the insurance industry but also exposes the insured to significant financial strain. Senior citizens, who often have a limited income, should be carefully guided through the process, with transparency about what policies offer and how they align with their needs. In the present cases, the insurer's failure to consider the specific age and financial status of the insured/respondents, shows a blatant disregard for ethical sales practices. In this view of the matter, it is held that the District Commission was right in ordering the appellants to refund the entire amount deposited by the respondents. It is therefore held that the orders dated 10.11.2023 passed by the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, in all the consumer complaints, referred to above, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals being devoid of merit must fail and the same stand dismissed with no order as to costs. The orders of the District Commission stand upheld. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge and one copy thereof be placed in the connected case files, forthwith. The concerned files be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.
Pronounced 08.10.2024 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg