w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal v/s Kajari Gayen & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH2000PLC129113

Company & Directors' Information:- SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH2000PLC129113

Company & Directors' Information:- O LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399PN2013PTC146147

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34203MH1995PTC092297

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST INDIA COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1945PTC004516

    Revision Petition No. 2423 of 2012

    Decided On, 21 July 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Bharat Malhotra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ex-parte.

Judgment Text


The complainant issued a cheque of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner on 17.8.2007 for purchasing SBI Life Unit Plus -II Pension Plan. The amount of the cheque was debited in her account on 21.8.2007. The petitioner did not make any allotment to the complainant on 17.8.2007 since it wanted to obtain additional information from the complainant. The said information was obtained at a later date and after satisfying itself with the information provided by the complainant allotment was made as per the NAV (Net Asset Value) of 8.10.2007. However, later on a modification was carried out by the petitioner and NAV of 17.8.2007 was applied to the allotment of the complainant on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, NAV of the date on which the cheque is received had to be applied.

2. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint having been allowed, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 10.5.2012, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner company. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner company is that as per Schedule II Clause 4 (c) of the terms and conditions which is quoted in the revision petition, the units had to be computed on the basis of the closing NAV of the date on which local cheque of the NAV was received by 3.00 p.m. His submission is that since the cheque from the complainant was received on 17.8.2007, they had rightly changed the applicable date to 17.8.2007.

4. The Clause relied upon by the petitioner, reads as under:-

“a. Closing NAV, if premium is received through local/cheque/DD to be allotted same day before or at 3.00 p.m. Otherwise next day closing NAV is applicable.”

5. It would be seen from the careful analysis of the above-referred clause that the closing NAV of the date on which a local cheque is received by 3.00 p.m. has to be applied for the purpose of determining the number of units to be allotted to the applicant provided that the allotment of units is made on the same day. If the units are not allotted on the same day, the closing NAV of that date would not be applicable. The pre-condition for applying the closing NAV of the date on which a cheque is received was that the allotment should of on the same day. That having not been done, the petitioner in my view was not justified in applying the NAV of 17.8.2007.

6. Admittedly, the allotment to the complainant was made on 8.10.2007. Therefore, it was the closing NAV of 8.10.2007 which the petitioner company had to apply for determining the nu

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mber of units to be allotted to the complainant. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the direction that the complainant would be entitled to the units calculated as per the closing NAV of 8.10.2007. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.