BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 10^th April 2017

PRESENT

   SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.312/2014

(Admitted on 25.08.2014)

1. M/s Excel Heart Care Associates Pvt Ltd,

    Villa A, The Pyramid, Falnir,

    Mangalore 575002.

    Represented by its Managing Director,

    Dr. Jayakrishnan A.G.,

    S/o late A.G.K. Nair,

    Aged about 61 years,

    Resident of Mangalore.

2. Dr. Jayakrishnan A.G.,

    S/o Late A.G.K. Nair,

    Aged about 61 years,

    Resident of Mangalore.

                                                        ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri MR)

VERSUS

1. The Authorised Signatory,

    HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    11^th Floor, Lodha Excels, Apollo Mills Compound,

    N M Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi,

    Mumabi  400011.

2. The Authorized Signatory,

    HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd,

    2^nd Floor, 3, Sona Palace,

    Near Infosys Technology,

    Kottara Junction Bus Stand,

    Mangalore  575 006.

                                                     ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 & No.2: Sri PAA)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainants against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainants alleges complainant No.1 is a Pvt Ltd Company  providing health related services and is represented by  complainant No. 2 its Managing Director. On the representation of officers of HDFC Bank, Kadri, Mangalore were also complainants bankers and agents had approached the complainants to secure a policy for the benefits of the employee of complainant No.1 and avail tax benefits.  Under section 37 (1) of Income Tax Act and its employees would also entitled for other benefits under the policy.   After mutual discussion by the complainants agreed to secure the policy as per assurances given by opposite parties agents.  Complainant No.2 is a busy professional.  The agents of opposite parties attained his signatures on certain unfilled forms and payment of Rs.1,01,550 was made by cheque by complainant No.1 on 17.3.12.   When the complainants received policy they were surprised to find the name of the complainant No.2 as assignor and the name of complainant No.1 as assignee and in view of this the benefit available under the policy cannot be availed by the company as assignee.  As only individual can avail the policy as assignee.   As the policy should have been registered prior to 31.3.2012 was registered on 1.4.12.   Even though premium was paid on 17.3.12 the application was registered on 20.3.2012 and the policy showing the date of maturity dated 20.2.2022.   In view of the belated registration of the policy the tax benefit for complainant No.1 could not be secure tax benefits and even complainant No.2 is unable to get exemption of tax benefit available under section 80 (c) of Income Tax Act.  Even date of birth of complainant No. 2 was wrongly mentioned as 28.03.1952 instead of 23.03.1952 and the policy document was tampered as 1.4.12 and is clearly mentioned as 17.3.12.  In view of these discrepancies when brought to the notice of opposite parties as complainant No.2 signed the documents with utmost good faith.   Opposite parties should have acted fairly and honourably.  They ought to have issued the policy in conformity with the terms and conditions mutually agreed.   In spite of complainant No.2 as such seeks direction to opposite parties to rectify the error or in alternate refund of the amount paid with interest.  Complainant had paid1st year premium on 20.3.13.  In spite legal notice dated 14.3.14 opposite parties as not complied with any one.  Hence seeks the relief claimed in the complaint.

II.     In the written version opposite party claims complainant No.2 had signed the document knowing fully well and policy was issued assigned to complainant No.1 to the complainant No.2 as the assignor.  It is also claimed by opposite party that HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, being involved in life insurance business issues insurance policies only on the life of individuals and not on artificial persons.  As such to change the 1^st complainant as assignor and the 2^nd complainant as assignor is not possible under law is not permissible as the proposed policy holder was 2^nd complainant an individual and it cannot be an artificial person i.e. 1^st complainant.  The assignment took place on 17.3.12 is the date of proposal as well and the date of commencement of policy is 20.03.2012 mentioned in the document page 4 the first premium receipts shows premium as paid on 23.3.2012 the date of birth of 2^nd complainant as rightly mentioned as 20.3.1952 in records and same has been confirmed by opposite parties under letter dated 15.6.2012.  The discrepancies mentioned by the complainant at para 2 is already rectified.  It is only terms and conditions opted by complainants submitted proposal forms for the insurance.  The complainants failed to exercise the right under the clause to exercise option to return contained in the said policy document which gives the policy holder to return the policy to opposite party of which was not done.  Alleging that there is no deficiency in service seeks dismissal.

2.     In support of the above complainant Dr. Jayakrishnan A.G filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C7 as detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Kumar B G (RW1) Associate Manager Legal, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R8 as detailed in the annexure here below. 

III.    In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the party.  Our findings on the points are as under are as follows

               Point No.  (i): Affirmative

              Point No.  (ii): Negative

              Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):  In this case the complainants claims there is an error committed by opposite party mentioning in the insurance policy issued in the name complainant No.1 as assignee and the complainant No.2 as assignee is an error and seeks rectification.   However opposite party No.2 in the version as well as in the written arguments mentions it came to issue a life insurance policy to a company in respect of an artificial person but only to an individual.  Opposite party claim was sought for in the application by the complainant which was signed by opposite party No.2 only after fully knowing condition the application policy was issued.  However the complainant mentioning there is an error in the policy issued as complainant No.2 is mentioned as assigner instead of mentioning complainant No.1 as assigner.  Opposite parties however denied such an error.  Hence there is a dispute between parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act.  Hence we answered point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No. (ii):    In respect of the claim of complainants as to correct date of birth in the policy the true copy of the policy produced by complainants themselves Ex.C1 shows the date of birth of life assured i.e. of complainant No.2 as 28^th March 1952.  Hence there is no such error on this count.

2.     In respect of the date of commencement of the policy Ex.C1 at 3^rd sheet in the column pertaining to date of commencement of policy is shown as 20^th March 2012.   Hence there is no error on this count.  Ex.C1 also contains true copy of the confirmation of assignee in respect of the policy in question it mentions the name of the policy holder has complainant No.2 and the name of assignor as complainant No.2 and the name of assignee as complainant No.1 i.e. M/s Excel Heart Care Associates Pvt Ltd.  The reverse side of the policy document at Ex.C1 contains copy of the application given by complainant No.2 for the policy.  In the nominee column the name of Smt. Shubha Jayakrishnan the wife of complainant No.2 is mentioned in section 3 of nominee details.  In the page pertaining to endorsement of the policy document complainant No.2 signed as policy holder assignor.

3.     Document produced by opposite party are not marked are now marked at Ex.R1 to R8.   As seen from the attested copy of the assignment document produced by opposite party at Ex.R3 is the copy of the assignment copy admittedly signed by complainant No.2 it shows the name of the policy holder i.e. as complainant No.2 and the detail of the assignee as complainant No.1 admitted by complainant No.2 as signed this document.  It is not the case of the complainant that the original policy was not served on complainants.   The documents were assigned are not served on the complainant soon after the purchase of the policy in 2012.  In fact it is not even the case of complainant that he was not given the statutory look in period to the policy.  Hence apart from this, the facts after payment of the 2^nd year premium complainant cannot be hard to say, in our considered view, there is an error in the policy in respect of the assigner even though the complainant is within the prescribed period of limitation mentioned in the C P Act.   The silence of complainant even after receipt of the policy during the look in period and payment of 2^nd years premium amount indicates that complainant admitted the correctness of entries in the policy issued to him by opposite party. Hence we are of the view that there is a no actionable deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards complainants.  Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii):    Wherefore the following

ORDER

                               The complaint is dismissed.

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

     (Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 10^th April 2017)

             MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

     (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                           (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                   D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                     Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:

CW1  Dr. Jayakrishnan A.G

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:

Ex.C1: Notarized copy of policy issued by the O Ps to the complainant

Ex.C2: Office copy of the legal notice dated 14.03.2014

Ex.C3: Postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.1 for the receipt  of afore referred

Ex.C4: Postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.2 for the receipt  of afore referred legal Notice

Ex.C5: Office copy of the legal notice dated 25.05.2014

Ex.C6: Postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.1 for the receipt of afore referred Legal Notice

Ex.C7: Postal acknowledgment of O.P.No.2 for the receipt of afore referred legal Notice

 Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1 Mr. Kumar B G, Associate Manager Legal

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: Attested copy of Policy document

Ex.R2: Attested copy Application Form

Ex.R3: Attested copy Assignment document

Ex.R4: Attested copy Employer  Employee Questionnaire

Ex.R5: Attested copy letter dated 15.06.2012 confirming Date of birth of 2^nd complainant

Ex.R6: Attested copy of the premium for first term dated 20.03.2012

Ex.R7: Attested copy E.C.S. mandate given by the 2^nd complainant

Ex.R8: Attested copy letter dated 18.06.2014 confirming on Premium payment and date of birth

Dated: 10.04.2017                                     PRESIDENT