BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.39 of 2019
Date of Instt. 08.02.2019
Date of Decision: 29.08.2023
Ashish Gupta aged about 47 years son of Sh. Joginder Pal Gupta R/o H. No.14, Ward No.45, Dilbagh Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Finance Limited, 4th Floor, Bajaj Finserve Corporate Office, Ahmed Nagar Road, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Bajaj Finance Limited, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager (Mobile 9872353745)
3. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, NM Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011
4. Harvinder Pal Singh, Consultant, HDFC Life, C/o HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodhi Excelus, Appollo Mills Compound, N. M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. H. S. Kohli, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
OP No.4 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is regular customer of Bajaj Finance Services as he has taken many consumer loans from Bajaj Finance, through its local branch. Bajaj Finance has issued the complainant a Privilege Customer Card. In the last week of November, 2018, the complainant received a call from Bajaj Finance Customer care that the complainant being their privilege customer has been selected for a special surprise gift by Bajaj Finance. Further the customer care executive insisted the complainant for some time at his residence with the Senior Executives of the company. The senior executive visited the residence of the complainant and informed him that the complainant has been selected for a special investment plan in which the complainant has to invest Rs.5000/- per month and get certain benefits. Further these executives got signatures of the complainant on ECS Debit Form and further took the cheque of Rs.10,000/- against two installments of the alleged investment plan. The executive further stated that next procedure will be followed by another team for the finalization of the plan and complainant can get further clarification from that team. The very next day two executives came to the office of the complainant and showed forms of HDFC Life and stated that they are here to get insurance plan executed in the name of the complainant and Bajaj Finance Ltd. is their agent. The complainant got suspicious. But after their consistent perusal on the condition that the complainant will be given all the due benefits as claimed by the executive of Bajaj Finance Ltd. and also free locking period of 15 days will be given to the complainant if the policy issued by HDFC Life will not be as per the commitment made by Bajaj Finance Ltd. HDFC Life will take the policy back and refund the amount back to the complainant. The complainant signed the documents for the HDFC Life and also conveyed to the executive that cheque of Rs.10,000/- should be presented after the issuance of policy and sent it on the mail ID of the complainant. On 28th November, 2018, policy no.20906052 was issued in the name of the complainant i.e. Ashish Gupta by HDFC Life through OP No.4 who is consultant of the OP No.3 which was revealed from the documents filed along with reply of OP No.3. The name of the policy was HDFC Life Super Income Plan. The policy along with terms and conditions was received by the complainant on 2nd December, 2018. While going through the insurance policy documents, the complainant found many irregularities/mis-selling on behalf of HDFC Life in connivance with Bajaj Finance Ltd. as the terms conveyed while discussing the policy would different from the terms written on the policy document. So, the complainant decided to cancel the above policy no.20906052. The complainant along with the original policy document requested for Cancellation on 6th December, 2018 to HDFC Life. On 24th December, the complainant received a letter from HDFC Life regarding the cancellation of policy no.20906052 requesting the complainant to further send some more documents to the company so that the company may refund the amount received from the complainant against the above said policy. The complainant many times tried to reach the company to get his policy canceled and get the money deposited by him back but with no fruitful result. Aggrieved from the attitude of the company, the complainant again wrote a letter to the company to cancel the policy no.20906052 in free locking period on 17th January, 2019. Further the complainant requested the company as he has surrendered the policy in free locking period HDFC Life should cancel ECS agreement and stop deducting any further ECS from the complainant's bank account held in Bank of Baroda bearing A/c. No.19600100001619. Surprisingly, instead of returning the money back to the complainant of the policy surrender in free locking period, the complainant is received SMS and recorded voice message on his mobile number to arrange for the refund for next ECS in his bank saving account. By not cancelling the above said policy in free locking period and refunding the money back to the complainant and stopping further ECS to be deducted from complainant saving account, the OPs are involved in unfair trade practices which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- paid for purchase of above said policy alongwith interest and to stop deducting further ECS from saving account of the complainant as the policy has been surrendered in free locking period. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service OP No.4 did not appear and ultimately OP No.4 was proceeded against exparte, whereas the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint is thus liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the OPs No.1 & 2 and complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures, therefore present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. It is further averred that there is no negligence, deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 in rendering services to the complainant and therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed material facts pertaining to the case from this Forum. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the OPs specifically deny and dispute all the contentions, claims, demands, allegations, averments, imputations & insinuations of the complainant against the OPs, save what is matter of record and what has been specifically admitted herein. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and filed with malafide intention and based on wrong information and not maintainable and liable to be rejected with cost. The complainant has filed this complaint with the intention to harass the OPs and grab the money and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable against the OPs No.1 and 2 as they are not necessary party to the captioned complaint. The Complaint is barred by Principle of Estoppels, waiver and acquiesces. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has closed two loans and the remaining two loans are active with NIL outstanding, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OP by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Court and hence is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs is liable to be dismissed. As the complainant has failed to provide the certain Document i.e. Policy Servicing request form, cancelled cheque with pre-printed- account holder number and IFSC, even the letter dated 17-12- 2018 was sent by the OP No.3 to complainant for processing of the balance payment after deduction i.e. expenditure of medical examination and stamp duty charges as per IRDA Rules and Regulations. So, no cause of action has arose against the OP No.3 to file the present complaint. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands. The complainant is himself guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It is the complainant who himself failed to supplied the certain document to the OP No.3 intentionally. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the present complainant. So the complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefits of its own wrong. It is further averred that no cause of action has been arose against the answering OP No.3 as the claim of the complainant has closed by the answering OPs due to non submission of documents. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The present complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. It is further averred that this Court no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the investment plan of the OP No.3, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.3 very minutely.
7. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.1 persuaded him to invest in special investment plan, in which he has to invest Rs.5000/- per month and get certain benefits. The OPs No.1 and 2 took cheque of Rs.10,000/- against two installments of the alleged investment plan. It has been alleged by the complainant that thereafter executive of the HDFC Life i.e. OP No.3 came to him to get insurance plan executed in the name of the complainant and further alleged that Bajaj Finance Ltd. is their agent. The executives of OP No.3 assured the complainant that he has a right to cancel the plan within a look up period and the refund will be paid to him. The complainant asked the OP No.3 to present the cheque after sending the policy to the complainant.
8. Now the case of the complainant is that when he went through the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the OP No.3, he found there is a huge difference between the conditions explained to him by the executive and the condition mentioned in the policy. He made request to OP for cancellation of the policy and refund of the money, but the money is not being refunded and there is deficiency.
9. The complainant has produced on record the policy super income plan Ex.C-1 dated 28.11.2018 and the name of the agent has been mentioned as Bajaj Finance Ltd. The gross period in this document has been mentioned as 15 days. The premium per frequency has been mentioned as Rs.4785/-. This document finds support from the conditions of the policy which shows that the premium of Rs.4785/- has been shown model premium, which is exclusion of taxes. The complainant has proved that he paid Rs.5000/- as per receipt filed on record which is the part of Ex.C-1. This receipt is dated 26.11.2018. The complainant has alleged that he has paid a cheque of Rs.10,000/- to the OP No.3 and this fact has been admitted by the OPs No.1 and 2 in their written statement in para No.2 of On Merits. The complainant has sent the letter Ex.C-2 dated 06.12.2018 vide which he made request to cancel the policy and to refund the money. This letter was sent within the look up period i.e. within 15 days from the date of the policy. Ex.C3 is the letter, vide which the documents were demanded from the complainant/cancelling the policy on 17.12.2018. In reply to the letter, the complainant immediately sent again a letter on 17.01.2019 stating therein that he had sent emails on 25.12.2018 and again on 07.01.2019 for cancellation of his policy and refund of money. In these replies, he has again stated that he is sending hard copies of the documents demanded for cancellation, which were already sent vide email dated 25.12.2018 and 07.01.2019, meaning thereby that all the documents required for cancellation of the policy have already been sent to the OP, but despite that the OP has not cancelled the policy nor has sent the refund. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, it is the duty of the OP to provide the proper services to the consumers and their customers, but despite taking all the documents from the complainant and despite the number of letters and emails, the OP has not refunded the amount nor has cancelled the policy. This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs No.3 & 4 are directed to cancel the policy No.20906052 with immediate effect and to refund Rs.10,000/-, which was paid for the purchase of the policy with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization. Further, OPs No.3 & 4 are directed to stop deducting further ECS from saving account of the complainant as the policy has been surrendered in free locking period, since OPs No.1 & 2 started the procedure by calling the complainant and convincing him to meet their executive at their instance. Thereafter, OPs No.3 & 4 approached the complainant. This is harassment which was caused by the OPs No.1 & 2. Therefore, OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and OPs No.3 & 4 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. Further, all the OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
29.08.2023 Member Member President
