Punjab

Sangrur

CC/394/2014

BIRBAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M., HDFC LIC - Opp.Party(s)

RAJINDER KUMAR

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    394

                                                Instituted on:      15.07.2014

                                                Decided on:       10.03.2015

 

Birbal Singh son of Ram Lal resident of Gahu Patti, Longowal, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. HDFC SL, Sangrur Branch, First Floor, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Ward No.3, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai through its MD.

3.     HDFC Bank, Branch Raman Mandi, District Bathinda through its Branch Manager (Earlier this was HDFC Branch Longowal).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.

For OP No.3              :       Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Birbal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant has a saving bank account bearing number 07961000002200 with OP number 3. It is further averred that on the advice of OP number 3, the complainant got himself insured with OPs number 1 and 2 as the OPs number 1 and 2 were offering handsome benefits to its customers. It was further told the complainant that if he would not interested in continuing the policy after three years then he could get his paid premium amount along with other benefits.  It is further averred that the complainant gave Rs.45,000/- to OP number 3 and requested him to fix the policy for the period of three years only as the complainant did not want to continue the policy for more than three years.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant received a receipt regarding payment of premium, in which policy number 13241752 was also mentioned.  It is further averred that the premium @ Rs.15000/- annual was paid in the year 2011 i.e. for three years.  It is further averred that when the complainant received nothing from the OPs, he requested the OPs to refund the amount with interest and other benefits.  Thereafter in the month of August, 2013 the complainant received a letter dated 3.8.2013 alleging that the fund value of the complainant’s premium was Rs.25,370/- only. It is further averred that he approached OP number 1 and told that since he had chosen the policy for three years only, but the OP number 1 did not hear his request.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him an amount of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the present complaint is time barred as the complainant obtained the policy in the month of November, 2009 and he deposited the premium amount up to November, 2011 and after that the complainant failed to deposit the due amount and the present complaint has been filed on 11.7.2014 after a period of more than two and half years, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is denied that the complainant got himself insured on the asking of OP number 3. It is further denied that the OP number 1 and 2 ever told the complainant that the complainant will get handsome return, if he will pay the premium amount for three years. It is also denied that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.45,000/- to OP number 3. It is further averred that the complainant approached OP number 1 to purchase a policy of Unit Linked Young Star II on 31.10.2009 and for this purpose he submitted all the documents and submitted the duly signed proposal form after understanding all the terms and conditions.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.15,000/- on 30.11.2009 and the premium paying term was of fifteen years.  However, it is admitted that the complainant paid the annual premium for three years upto 2011. However, it is admitted that the OPs sent a letter dated 3.8.2013 to the complainant and apprised about the fund value, but even after that the complainant did not get his policy regularised.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in question with OP number 3.  However, it is denied that the complainant got insured himself with the Ops number 1 and 2 on the asking of OP number 3.  The remaining allegations of the complainant in the complaint are denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 transaction activity, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 3.8.2013, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-6 copies of statements of accounts and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of first premium receipt, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of unit statement, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of policy, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of proposal form, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of consent letter, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of mandate form, Ex.OP1&2/7 copy of letter dated 3.8.2013 and Ex.Op1&2/8 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that he purchased a policy bearing number 13241752 from OPs number 1 and 2 at the instance of OP number 3 and deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- with OP number 3 for making the payment of instalments of premium in question in which an amount of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid annually for three years.  The policy in question was obtained on the assurance of OP number 3 that after three years, the complainant will get the amount so deposited with interest along with other benefits.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that instead of that, the OPs vide letter dated 3.8.2013 intimated the complainant that fund value of the complainant’s premium is Rs.25,370/- only as he stopped paying the premium amount after three years and the policy in question was for 15 years with the sum assured of Rs.73,000/-.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, we find that the policy in question is Ex.OP1&2/3 and the same is for a period of 15 years and that the original premium amount of Rs.15,000/- per year along with the sum assured of Rs.73,000/-.  In the policy document, it has been also mentioned that in case the policy is not acceptable to the policy holder, the same could be got cancelled within a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt.  The complainant has denied the receipt of the policy in question, but then question arises that when the complainant received the first premium receipt dated 30.11.2009, which is Ex.C-2 and subsequently also on receipt of unit statement dated 30.11.2009, which is Ex.C-3, he should have taken up the matter with the OPs for policy, as the OPs have mentioned policy number 13241752 has been mentioned on both of these documents.  The complainant is also in receipt of document Ex.C-4, which is dated 3.8.2013, but still on the receipt of the document, the complainant has not requested the OP for issuance of the policy document, whereas the document also bears policy number 13241752, as such the plea of the complainant that he has not received the policy document in question is not tenable and at this belated stage, this allegation of the complainant is not even supported by any documentary evidence.

 

8.             Further there is nothing on record that if the complainant had not received the policy, then what steps he has taken for getting the same.  There is no documentary evidence on record to the effect that he ever approached the OPs for cancellation of the policy or for obtaining the policy in question from the OPs.  Further in the present case, the document Ex.C-4 reveals that OPs number 1 and 2 have also sent a letter dated 3.8.2013 to the complainant and had informed him with regard to the face value of the policy and since then also, there is no evidence led by the complainant that the Ops are deficient in service except for filing of the present complaint on 15.7.2014.  In the document Ex.C-4, the OPs number 1 and 2 have also mentioned that “your policy funds, which continue to be invested in the market are subject to market fluctuations”.  Since the complainant had opted to purchase a policy where the money was to be invested in the market is no doubt a riskful investment.  As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if they have offered the complainant to refund an amount of Rs.25,370/- only as the fund value of the premium of the complainant deposited by him.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the case and accordingly the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 10, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member