Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 263
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President, Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member, Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member
Managing Director SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mr.Peer Bax – Respondent
First Appeal No. 30/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.Himanshu Kapila, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr.Tek Chand Advocate
Insurance policy terms govern refunds; no deficiency in service found based on complainant's request for full premium after lock-in period.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 2(1)(g) - Insurance Policy - Appellants directed to refund amount to complainant along with interest for misrepresentation. - Complainant purchased pension policy but demanded full premium after lock-in period. - Court found no deficiency in service by insurer as terms clearly allowed partial withdrawal with the remaining balance converting to annuity. (Paras 16, 18, 20)
(B) Appeal - Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - An appeal does not allow for the reassessment of facts if the original decision is not shown to be flawed or erroneous. (Paras 22)
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased an insurance policy which the insurer claimed was a pension product; refund request was denied citing policy terms.
Findings of Court:
Complainant was informed of the policy's nature and terms; fulfillment duties were adequately met by the insurers.
Issues: Whether the complainant is entitled to the refund of the entire premium, violating the policy terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that policy terms were clear, limiting withdrawal post lock-in with amounts transferred to an annuity product, not refundable.
Result: Appeal allowed; prior ruling set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the purchase and terms of the insurance policy. (Para 2 , 3 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. court's observations on compliance and interpretation of policy terms. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 20) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding policy terms. (Para 8) |
| 4. court's ruling on the terms of the policy and deficiency in service. (Para 18) |
| 5. outcome of the appeal and its implications. (Para 23) |
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated
20.12.2022 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Chamba in Consumer Complaint No.39/2019 titled Peer Bax Versus The Managing Director SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.4,72,325.80/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 06.02.2019 till its realization. The opposite parties were also directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of misrepresentation and for all heads of suffering, besides litigation cost quantified as Rs.7,500/-.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2014, the complainant purchased a SBI Life Insurance policy bearing No.1H000033803 from the opposite parties/insurance company. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, lock in period of the policy was five years. First premium of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the insurance company. The complainant was in need of money for his domestic problem and approached the opposite parties to release the aforesaid premium amount of Rs.5,00,000/- plus interest of five years to the complainant, but the opposite parties are lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. As per terms and conditions of the policy in question, the opposite parties were duty bound to release the whole amount to the complainant forthwith along with interest, as the lock in period of the policy was five years, and the said period has already been completed. The complainant requested the opposite parties to release the said amount, but in vain. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The opposite parties/insurance company filed reply to the complaint and stated that the complainant had only paid one premium of Rs.5,00,000/- under the SBI Smart Retire policy No.1H000033803 (i.e. pension policy). The fund value, as on first working day of sixth year of the policy was Rs.7,08,453.28/-. Hence, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the company credited an amount of Rs.2,36,127.47/- in the account of the complainant and balance amount of Rs.4,72,325.80/- was converted into Annuity Plan Policy bearing No.2245140604 commencing from 23.07.2019. Proposal form for said annuity plan dated 23.07.2019 was also signed by the complainant himself. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for whole amount. As per Annuity Policy, the complainant will receive annuity of Rs.2,670/- every month, during his life time. First payment of annuity amount has already been credited in the account of the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants/Insurance company preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel of the appellants/insurance company has submitted that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy from the appellant-company for a period of 10 years. He further submitted that the complainant had paid only one premium of Rs.5,00,000/- and failed
