Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1228 of 2010

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., A company incorporated

under the Cimpanies Act, 1956 having its Corporate

office at 2^nd Floor Turner Morrison Building, G.N.

Vaidya Marg, Fort, Mumbai and amongst other a

Branch Office at 2^nd Floor, Metro Tower, Shahnajaf

Road, Lucknow through its Constituted Attorney.

                                                                              ..Appellant.

Versus

1- Mr. Devendra Varshney, aged about 42 years,

S/o Sri Parmanad Gupta, R/o Bazar Ganj

Saray Tarin Sambal, Muradabad.

2- Sri Ravindra Kumar, Insurance Advisor, Kursi

    Vikas Branch SBI Muradabad Road Nagar,

    Sambal Dist. Muradabad.                          .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Sachin Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri S.P. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.

Date    1.9.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the judgment and order dated 21 May 2010 passed by the Learned District Consumer Dispute. Redressal Forum, Moradabad in complaint case no.104 of 2009, Devendra Varshney Vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited.

The brief facts of the appeal after that the complainant Mr. Devendra Varshney has submitted a proposal bearing number 33811039 on 20 June 2009 along with an amount of

(2)

₹ 50,000/– by way of cheque no.661309 dated 4 June 2009 through an agent who was not activated/certified to sell Unit Linked Insurance Policies (UL IP). A requirement letter dated 20 June 2009 was sent calling for certain requirements and also it was mentioned that the CIF was not certified to sell UL IP policies by then. Later on the proposal was received on 25 June 2009 and by the time the CIF was certified to sell the UL IP policies but the other requirements were called for vide letter dated 20 June 2009 of the appellant as they were not received on 25 June 2009 along with the proposal. The basic requirements were submitted by the proposer on 25 July 2009 and the policy was issued vide number 33011548205 instantly after receiving the requirements with date of commencement dated 27 July 2009.

As per clause 8 of the schedule III under the caption date of NAV for computation of units, it is clearly mentioned that the NAV applicable for the creation of units for the First Premium along with the proposal form shall be the closing NAV of the credit date or underwriting acceptance date whichever is later. In the instant case even though the cheque was realised on 29 June 2009 but the requirements were received only on 25 July 2009 (it is evident from the receipt of the requirements) and the proposal was accepted and the units were allotted as per the prevailing NAV is on 27 July 2009 on the next working day. The units could not be allocated on 25 July 2009 or 26 July 2009 as both being Saturday and Sunday (holidays for the capital markets) and as such the NAV was allotted promptly on 27 July 2009. Hence

(3)

no deficiency in service can be alleged on the part of the appellant. It is settled law that mere deposit of amount towards the premium along with the proposal does not automatically result into a policy. Depending on the sum assured and special medical reports would be called for and after the insurer is fully satisfied the proposal is convert