National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
Suresh Kumar – Petitioner
versus
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4421 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 09/07/2014 in Appeal No.187/2014 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 2.2.2021

IMPORTANT POINT
“No refund of amount can be claimed on surrender of policy, if there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy on part of Insurance Company.”

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Insurance policy – Surrender – Forfeiture of amount – Scope – Petitioner took a housing loan from respondent No. 2 and monthly installments were deducted from his salary account – Subsequently, respondent No.2 opened another bank account of complainant for Rs. 2,18,300/- and paid entire amount to respondent No.1 – Later on, in view of request of petitioner, respondent No.1 closed the policy and refunded Rs. 79,865/- – As per materials on record, petitioner had requested respondent No.2 to obtain optional Insurance Scheme for housing loan and had also requested for grant of additional loan of Rs. 2,18,300/- to enable him to pay insurance premium for said policy – Plea of petitioner that second loan account was opened without his consent not accepted – Further, petitioner could not brought any material to substantiate his plea regarding non-refunding of balance amount of Rs. 1,38,435/- – Violation of terms and conditions of policy on part of respondent No.1 ruled out – Impugned order of State Commission upheld.

Held: Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner took a housing loan of Rs.20 lakh from State Bank of India/Respondent No.2 and the monthly installments were to be deducted from his salary account. In March, 2011, Respondent No.2 Bank opened another loan account No.31658807379 of the Complainant for Rs.2,18,300 and paid the entire amount to SBI Life Insurance, Chandigarh, as he opted for Optional Insurance Scheme for loan borrowers, after duly signing the proposal form dated 07.03.2011. Later, he expressed his inability to continue with the Policy and vide letter dated 20.07.2012 requested for closure of the Insurance Policy. On his request, the Policy was closed by Respondent No.1 and Rs.79,865/- refunded.

The Petitioner contended that the second loan account No.31658807379 for Rs.2,18,300/- was opened without his consent. It is seen from the record that the Petitioner duly signed the application dated 07.03.2011 addressed to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 22-C Chandigarh, for opening of loan account for Rs.2,18,300/-. It is abundantly clear from the application that the Petitioner had requested Respondent No.2 Bank to obtain Optional Insurance Scheme for housing loan borrower. He had also requested the Bank to grant him an additional loan of Rs.2,18,300/- to enable him to pay the insurance premium for the said Policy. Petitioner/Complainant was employed with Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and being educated cannot claim ignorance of the contents of the application dated 07.03.2011 duly signed by him. The contention of the Petitioner that the loan account was opened without his consent does not, therefore, sustain.

The Petitioner also alleged that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account and paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. from 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012. The Petitioner, however, had not filed any documentary evidence in support of his allegation that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account. On the other hand, Respondent No.2/State Bank of India filed affidavit of Mr. S.K. Gupta, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh before the State Commission, stating that no amount was paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. from 26.08.2011 to 22.09.2012, rather the said amount of Rs.28,816/- was credited to the account of the Petitioner. District Forum also held that the said the amount of Rs.28,816/- was credited to loan account No.31658807379 as was clear from the loan account statement produced by the Complainant himself. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.28,816/- was debited from his account and paid to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. cannot be accepted.

Regarding forfeiting/non-refunding the balance amount of Rs.1,38,435/- on surrender of the Insurance Policy, the Petitioner has not placed on record any evidence that Respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. also stated that Respondent No.1 paid the surrender value of Rs.79,865/- in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The allegation of the Petitioner regarding forfeiture of amount of Rs.1,38,435/- by Respondent No.1, also does not stand.

. In view of the above, the State Commission rightly set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint. The Petitioner has failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. (Paras 13 to 17)

Result: Petition Dismissed.