Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/5/2019

Sri Hrudananda Sarangi - Complainant(s)

Versus

1- The Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.C. Mohanty, Arabinda Dash

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 05/2019

 

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Sri. Hrudananda Sarangi,

S/O-Late Rama Narayan Sarangi,

R/O, At/Po-Sakhigopinathpara, Sambalpur.

Ps-Dhanupali,

Tahasil/Dist-Sambalpur                                    ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

          At-1^st Floor, M/S Hota Complex

          Above Planet Fashion, Main Road Budharaja,

          Sambalpur-768004.

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank, Sambalpur

At/Po/Ps & Dist-Sambalpur          …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. A.Dash, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.1                               :-Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P.2                               :-Sri. B.M.Pattanaik, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:03.04.2019,  Date of Hearing :21.11.2022,  Date of Judgement : 10.01.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant insured his life with O.P. No.1 in the year 2012 for a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh with yearly premium of Rs. 20,000/- for ten years vide policy No. 1565402 w.e.f 18.09.2012. The lock in period was 5 years. The policy had got auto debit facility, whereby the O.P. No.1 received the amount of the policy automatically from Banker O.P. No.2 A/C No. 359190005456. The premium was exhausted two years back but the O.P. No.1 demanded premium making telephonic calls informed through messages that the policy has been lapsed due to non-payment and to avail 100% free renewal of the said policy. On 25.01.2019 a notice was served to O.P. No.1 not to harass and keep the policy into force but the O.P. No.1 did not paid any heed. Although the premium has been paid for 5 years as per agreement the O.P. No.1 was demanding premium.

Another policy 14438853 the Complainant was forced to close pre-matured due to such activities of the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 has committed fraud and cheating and harassed the complainant. When the O.P. No.1 did not restore the policy this complaint was filed.

 

2. The O.P. No.1 insurance company in reply submitted that the Complainant is no more a consumer from 18.12.2018 when policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium and it is duly informed to the Complainant. The Policy HDFC SL YOUNG STAR SUPER PREMUIM NO. 15650402 is with an annual premium of Rs. 20,000/- for term of 10 years commenced from 18.12.2012 with assured sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The final premium due was on 18.12.2012. Likewise for policy No. 16873728 sum assured was 2.00lakhs commencing from 10.06.2014 and final premium was due on 10.06.2023. The Complainant made the proposal after being convinced with the policy terms. The Complainant is misguiding the Commission. For policy No. 15650402 the final premium date was 18.12.2021 and for policy No. 16873728 on 10.06.2023. The policy holder has paid 5 no.s of premium in policy No. 15650402 since Dec. 2012 and 6 nos. of premium in another policy. Policy No. 14438853 relates with one Nazir Ahmad Das, Srinagar for revival of the policy intimation has been made. Policy No. 15650402 can be received with premium amount and other charges because if non-payment within timeline.

The policy holder has never raised any allegation against policy No. 15650402 & 16873728 in respect of premium after receipt of the policy. As per clauses 5, 6 & 7 of the policy bond the policy holder can surrender the policy if desires. Without invoking those clauses with malafide intention this complaint was filed. There is no deficiency on the part of the O.P.No.1 nor violated the policy terms. The O.P. No.1 has acted in fairness. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

3. The O.P. No.2 in its version submitted that the Bank is not a necessary party. The Complainant has a saving Bank Account No. 03691930005464 instead of 3591930005456 with the O.P. no.2. There in no any privy to the alleged transactions and accordingly the complaint is liable to dismissed against O.P. No.2.

 

4. Perused the documents filed by the complainant and O.P. No.1 for policy No. 15650402 term period was 10 years, sum assured Rs. 1,40,000/- and annual premium Rs. 20,000/-. The Complainant has paid 5 installments from 15.12.2012 to 18.12.2017 as per payment history. Message dated 18.12.2018 shows that to keep adequate balance in the account and premium unpaid message. The message dated 29.01.2019 is the intimation about lapse of the policy. The Complainant filed notice dated 25.01.2019.

The O.P. No.1 filed the policy documents in policy No. 15650402 and 16873728.

After perusal of the documents the following issued are framed:-

 

103606587.  

1. Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.1 ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Is there any deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.1 ?

The Complainant is an advocate and welversed with the policy terms and conditions in respect of policy No. 15650402 and 16873728. The Complainant has paid premiums w.e.f 15.12.2012 to 18.12.2017, 5 nos of premiums and thereafter not paid the rest premium up to final date. Likewise in respect of policy No. 16873728 similar practice has been observed. When the parties are executing a policy bond both are bound by the policy terms. The Complainant has not paid the premium in both the policies after 18.12.2017 in respect of policy No. 15650042. Likewise premium has not been paid up to 10.06.2023 in policy No. 16873728. The Complainant has not shown his correct S.B. A/C No. 03691930005464 in complaint. The messages sent by O.P. No.1 also shows the A/C number ending with 5464.

Timely messages have been given by the O.P. No.1 for revival of the policy, this clearly prove the intention of the O.P. No.1. The Complainant instead of reviving the policies or opting for surrender of the policy came to the Commission. There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.1 found. Likewise, the O.P. No.2 is the proforma O.P.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2  What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

From the Supra discussion it is observed that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

 

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. No Cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 10^th January 2023.

Supply free copies to the parties.