SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. AMRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two appeals i.e. FA. No. 107 of 2012, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited v. Amrit Kaur & Ors. and F.A. No. 147 of 2012, State Bank of Patiala & Anr. v. Amrit Kaur & Anr., since both the appeals have arisen out of the same impugned order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, "the District Forum") and can be conveniently decided by means of this common order. The facts are taken from F.A. No. 107 of 2012 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. The brief facts are that, Smt. Amrit Kaur, respondent No. 1

(2.) NOTICE of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties by the District Forum after admitting the complaint. Opposite party No. 1 -SBI Life Insurance Co. filed its separate written reply, admitting that it grants insurance coverage to individuals through Individual insurances having some commonality among them. It was averred in preliminary objections that opposite party No. 1 had already discharged the contractual obligation under the policy in this case and hence, the complaint is without any substance. The opposite party No. 1 has issued the policy in good faith and the complainant has not raised any issue pertaining to terms and conditions of the policy and rattier applied for surrender of the policy. There is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has received the proposal form in compliance with all the requirements along with premium amount. There is, thus, no dispute of terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party No. 1 never forced the complainant to go in for insurance. Opposite party No. 1 is not privy to the transaction between opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and the complainant. On merits, it was pleaded that the proposer is expected to ascertain the terms and conditions of the policy before signing the proposal form. There is even a provision for cancellation of policy under 'Free Look Period" clause, if the policy holder does not agree with the terms and conditions of the policy. After the elapse of three years, the complainant applied for surrender of policy on 11.4.2011 and accordingly, surrender value of Rs. 68,588 was paid through direct credit in the account of the complainant at State Bank of Patiala. The policy would acquire surrender value provided that at least one entire policy years' premium has been paid. The contract of insurance has to incorporate the terms and conditions of the policy document. Opposite party No. 1 denied the contents of the complaint. The complainant who is a nurse, signed the proposal form after duly understanding its terms and conditions. Opposite party No. 1 vehemently denied any deficiency in service on its part. Opposite party No. 1 sent reply to the legal notice to the complainant, requesting the policy details. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 replied in detail to the legal notice of the complainant on 25.6.2011. Opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) IN support of her contentions, the complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex. C -1 along with proposal deposit receipt Ex. C -2, unpaid premium intimation Ex. C -3, legal notice Ex. C -4, Rejoinder/additional notice Ex. C -5, reply to legal notice Ex. C -6, postal receipts Ex. C -7 to Ex. C -10, Acknowledgement Receipts Ex. C -11 & Ex. C -12 and additional affidavit of complainant Ex. C -13. To rebut it, opposite party No. 1 tendered affidavit of V. Srinivas, Legal Head in SBI Life Insurance Co. as Ex. R -1, insurance policy documents Ex. R -2 & Ex. R -3. Ex. R -4 is the surrender application form signed by the complainant, Ex. R -5 is the submission of surrender value to complainant, Ex. R -6 is the legal notice notice, Ex. R -7 is the reply to legal notice, Ex. R -8 is the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2884 of 2010 decided on 10.12.2010, Ex. R -9 is the CDJ Law Journal, Ex. R -10 is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1996 SC 1644, Ex. R -11 is the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 211 of 2009 decided on 2.2.2010, Ex. R -12 is another judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as 1986 -95 Consumer 138 (NS) LIC of India v. M. Gowri & Ors., Ex. R -13 is the affidavit of J.K. Dogra, Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Ex. R -14 is the affidavit of Pawan Kumar, SWO, of State Bank of Patiala. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint of the complainant and directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 21,412 being less of amount of Rs. 90,000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of its payment till realization of amount and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation. It was further held that the liability of the opposite parties is joint and several to comply with the order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/opposite party No. 1 has preferred the appeal i.e. FA. No. 107 of 2012, SBI Life Insurance Company Limited v. Amrit Kaur & Ors., whereas opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed separate appeal i.e. FA. No. 147 of 2012, State Bank of Patiala & Anr. v. Amrit Kaur & Anr.