BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 390/2012 C.C.No.890/2011, Dist. Forum-1,Hyderabad.
Between:
1.Lt.Col ( Ur
S/ Aged 51 years,
Resident of Flat No.401,
Sikh Village,
….Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
5th floor, Eureka Towers,
Link Road,
2.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
5th floor, Eureka Towers,
Link Road,
3.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
5th Floor, Eureka Towers,
Link Road,
4. Branch Manager,
HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
102, First Floor, “
Opposite
5-4-94, MG Road,
Secunderabad- 500 003. Respondents/
Counsel for the Appellant : party in person
Counsel for the Respondents :
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
And
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral : (Per Sri
***
The complainant filed the appeal against the order dt.9.5.2012 of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.890/2011, filed by the appellant herein was dismissed .
The will be described as they arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, is that the complainant being a retired army officer, took life insurance policy, as one time policy, by paying Rs.4 vide and policy bearing no.13641811 dt.7.5.2010 was received in his house in his absence The complainant is under the view that a single payment is sufficient for the policy A E-Mail dt.8.5.2011 stating that his premium of Rs.4,00,000/- was due, was received by him for HDFCSL policy and then only the complainant came to know that the policy was not a single payment policy. The complainant called up who persuaded him to buy the policy to come and clarify the E-Mail But he did not come and clarify Thereafter, the complainant approached Corporate Sales Manager and gave an application requesting to one time payment, iii) reduce the premium to 1.5 x 4 years=6 He was assured that one of options would be and would be informed soon. By an E- mail dt.25.5.2011, the opposite party stated that as the complainant did not revert during 15 days free lock-in period, nothing could be done and he was advised to pay Rs.250/- as revival charges and pay premium On 28.5.2011, the complainant again sent an E-Mail addressed to his dissatisfaction over the and the opposite party was requested once again to have an unbiased approach to resolve the issue On 4.7.2011 an E-Mail was received from could be done at that belated stage and advised to continue the policy Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant seeking direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.4 paid as premium, along with interest at 18 % p.a. , to pay Rs.1 and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the complaint, to the complainant.
party filed written version stating that the complainant agreed to pay premium of Rs.4 per year, for a term of 15 years with three years locking period and the complainant did not raise any objections within 15 days of receipt of the policy and that the contract of life insurance between them and the complainant has become concluded, as such the claim was repudiated on the ground that the complainant did not revert during the 15 days free lock period and nothing could be done at this stage.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A20
The opposite parties filed evidence affidavit, but they did not choose to adduce any evidence, in support of their contention.
and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant did not raise any objection to the terms and conditions within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, as such, the District Forum is of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred the above appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. That the District Forum failed to see as to how the policy in question was sold by the respondent/ and ethics of good business protocol That the District Forum failed to consider the request of the appellant/complainant for cancellation of the policy and that going through the document filed by the appellant/complainant, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. the appeal may be allowed and the complaint filed by the appellant may be allowed.
a petition in FAIA.1439/2012 praying to receive the manuscript said to have been given by one of the appellant, as an additional evidence and the petition was allowed after hearing both sides and the document was received subject to proof and relevancy and it was marked as Ex.A21.
We heard the appellant/complainant in person and the respondent filed written arguments We have and gone through the entire material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for It is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained life insurance policy from the opposite party insurance by paying an amount of Rs.4 is that he was made to believe, that he would be issued one time policy and accordingly he paid Rs.4 but the opposite party issued HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy in his at Rs.4 The sum assured was Rs.20 On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant took a policy Unit Linked Wealth Builder Policy from the opposite party company for a term of 15 years. The complainant agreed to pay the premium of Rs.4 minimum lock in period of 3 years.
The complainant admitted that he received the policy document sent by the opposite party but contended that when the policy was received at his house he was out of station, When he received Ex.A4 E-Mail from the opposite party insurance company informing him that his premium of Rs.4 party insurance company in his not a One Time Policy Then immediately he addressed Ex.A6 letter dt.10.5.2011 to the opposite party insurance company stating that he had taken subject policy in question thinking that the same is One Time Policy and requested to cancel the policy or make it One Time Payment or reduce the premium to 1.5 company repudiated the claim, on the ground that as the complainant did not revert during the 15 days free lock in period.
As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant agreed to pay the premium of Rs.4 per year to a policy of 15 years period with 3 years lock-in period and admittedly the complainant did not raise any objection within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document In view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the contention of the complainant, that he was out of station, when the policy was received in his house and he came to know that the policy issued is not one time policy, when he received Ex.A6 letter, cannot be accepted, because the contract between the complainant and the opposite party insurance company has become concluded.
However, the appellant/complainant filed Ex.A21, Manuscript copy given by in this appeal Ex.A21 shows that the complainant was approached and was asked to take the policy as One Time Payment Policy Though, the opposite parties have opposed the application filed by the complainant to receive Ex.A21, manuscript, as additional evidence, they did not dispute the fact that one Financial Advisor cum Agent of HDFC Standard Life The specific contention of the is that Ex.A21, Manuscript is in the handwriting of the said denying Ex.A21 manuscript. If really Ex.A21 is not in hand writing of affidavit of denying the contention of the complainant that Ex.A21 is given by the said
From Ex.A21, it appears that the complainant was made to believe that the policy issued by the opposite party insurance company is One Time Policy It is true that since the policy issued by the opposite party insurance company is a concluded contract between the complainant and the opposite party insurance company and in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party insurance company is not liable to cancel the policy or make it One Time Payment Policy or to reduce the premium to 1.5 the opposite party insurance company would have refunded the premium amount paid by the complainant, to him The opposite party insurance company is not supposed to enrich by itself by keeping the amount of Rs.4 paid by the complainant, denying the same to the complainant, on technical grounds Therefore in the interest of justice and principles of natural justice, we are inclined to direct the opposite party insurance company to refund the sum of Rs.4 to the complainant, with interest Since we are directing the opposite to pay interest on the amount of Rs.4 to award any compensation to the complainant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the impugned order of the District Forum and allowing the complaint in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.4 along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Ex.A6 i.e. 10.5.2011, till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the costs of the complaint and this appeal The remaining claims of the appellant/complainant in the complaint are dismissed The opposite parties are directed to with this order, within a month, from the date of this order.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Pm* dt.13.12.2012
