Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6750
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President, Hon’ble Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member, Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member
The 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
An insurance policy’s terms dictate the refund and annuity structure; misrepresentation claims require clear proof.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - Insurance Policy - The complaint was allowed directing the refund of policy amount along with interest and compensation for misrepresentation - The appellant contended the policy was a pension plan and the complainant was only entitled to 1/3rd of the amount post lock-in period, converting the remainder to an annuity. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Misrepresentation - The court held that the complainant failed to provide notice of the policy being misrepresented. It determined the terms of the policy were clear—entitling only part refund and an annuity thereafter. (Paras 18, 20).
Facts of the case:
The complainant purchased a SBI Life Insurance policy on 05.02.2014, with a lock-in period of 5 years, but only paid one premium. The insurance company defended the terms cited under the pension plan rules.
Findings of Court:
The insurance company’s actions were deemed to comply with the policy terms, denying that a full refund was warranted.
Issues: Whether the insurance company represented the policy terms incorrectly and if the complainant was entitled to a full refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The commission emphasized the binding nature of policy terms and the necessity for the complainant to adhere to agreement conditions, particularly in recognizing the pension nature of the plan.
Result: Appeal allowed and earlier order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. insurance contract nature and premium obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. complaint resolution relies on terms adherence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 14 , 16 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. terms of policy guide entitlements post lock-in. (Para 13 , 18) |
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 to deposit the remaining premium and thereafter, discontinued the policy. He further submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insuranc
