Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1127/2010

Jaspal Singh S/o Hardayal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Beghel Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Singh

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.1127 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 29.11.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 13.01.2017

Jaspal Singh aged about 32 years son of Shri Hardayal Singh, resident of Village Ratauli, PO Khera Farm, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Beghel Singh son of not known, resident of village Kotarkhana, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, authorized agent of H.D.F.C., Standard Life Insurance Company, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.  Branchy Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Branch Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager. 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Karam Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              Sh. M.L.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2. 

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Jaspal Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the agent of respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs) approached the complainant in the month of December, 2006 for purchasing the insurance policy from OP No.2 Insurance Company upon which the complainant purchased the policy bearing No. 10817954 and got himself insured for the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- against annual premium of Rs. 99,000/- and paid first premium of Rs. 99,000/- to OP No.2 through Op No.1.After that, the complainant deposited second premium of Rs. 99,000/- with the OP No.2 Insurance Company. As per assurance given by the agent, the premium for the abovesaid policy was to be paid by the complainant only for 3 years and the complainant paid only 2 years premium regularly without any interruption. In this way, the complainant deposited Rs. 1,98,000/- with the OP No.2 insurance company. After that, complainant visited so many times to the office of OP No.2 in order to get information about the status of the policy in question but the OP No.2 every time told to the complainant that policy in question is gaining a good benefit on account of interest alongwith death risk but did not tell anything clearly. In the first week of November, 2010 complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 in order to get information about the status of the policy in question and on this the official of Op No.1 told to the complainant to get the policy in question surrendered against the amount of Rs. 90,000/- with the excuse that there is inflation in the market and in future the rates of interest can go down in the insurance sector and the policy in question will not give good benefits to the complainant. The complainant purchased the policy in question on the assurance of the agent i.e. OP No.1 under the control and supervision of OP No.2 in order to provide insurance facility to the general public, but as per the facts mentioned above the OPs are playing fraud to the unknown and innocent persons, the complainant is a simple agriculturist and purchased the policy in question on the assurance of the OPs. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get deposited amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- alongwith interest as well as litigation expenses from the insurance company. Hence, this complaint.

3                      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. Op No.1 filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct; complainant has no cause of action; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit, it has been denied that OP No.1 is working or ever worked as insurance agent of the OP No.2 company. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint against OP No.1.

4.                     Op No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties as the policy in question was sold by Sh. Iqbal Singh, insurance agent, licensed by IRDA who was working on the commission basis with the OP Insurance Company but he has not been impleaded in the present complaint; the Op No.1 Mr. Baghel Singh was working as a sales employee of the company at the time of sale of the present insurance policy, however, he left the company in the year 2007. Complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and on merit it has been admitted that the present insurance policy was proposed by the complainant himself on his own life vide proposal form dated 19.12.2006 and thereafter, based on the information given in the proposal form, the present insurance policy was issued to the complainant. Later on the policy documents were supplied to the complainant as per policy, the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- at all times for a period of 15 years. As per terms and conditions of the policy in question, the second annual premium was to be paid on 19.12.2007 but however, the complainant did not pay the same on due date and due to that the policy in question was lapsed. Thereafter, the complainant submitted renewal premium of Rs. 99,000/- alongwith a fine of Rs. 250/- on 21.03.2008. However, as per guidelines of the IRDA there was a lock in period of 3 years, thereby the complainant was to pay premiums atleast for a period of first three years but the complainant has paid only 2 annual premiums thereby himself breaking the terms and conditions of the present contract of insurance. It has been further mentioned that it is highly unlikely that after paying the second premium, the complainant came to know that the present policy is unit linked, as per proposal form that the complainant filled and submitted declares that it is “unit linked proposal form” in capital bold letters. Secondly, the proposal form was accepted, a policy documents containing all the terms and conditions were given to the complainant. Till now, the complainant has never given them any written complaint or ever raised any allegations since the purchase of said insurance policy in the year 2006. The complainant never visited their branch office in the month of November, 2010, as alleged in the complaint. As far as surrender value is concerned, the present insurance contract is governed by the Guidelines of IRDA and the company cannot got out of the guidelines to give the surrender value to the complainant. At the time of issuance of the present policy, the complainant was provided with the option to return the present policy within 15 days lock in period but he did not return the policy documents. Lastly, it has been mentioned that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the matter involved in the present case is of Contract Act and it does not constitute Consumer disputes and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua Op no.2.

5.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter dated 26.10.2006 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of first premium receipt dated 31.12.2006 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of forwarding letter for sending the insurance policy dated 03.01.2007 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of premium schedules alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure C-4 and C-5, Photo copy of school certificate alongwith ration card as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of statement of units as on 02.01.2007 as Annexure C-7 and C-8, Photo copy of blank form as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Baghel Singh as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of unit linked proposal form as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of first premium receipt dated 31.12.2006 as Anenxure R-2, Photo copy of forwarding letter of insurance policy alongwith terms and conditions as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of undertaking as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 19.12.2006 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of circular issued by IRDA as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

7                      Counsel for Op No.2 tendered the same documents tendered by OP No.1 Annexure R2/1 to R2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.   

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     Learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that neither the complainant returned the policy in question in free lock in period of 15 days nor he has paid the minimum three (3) yearly installments and the policy in question was lying in the lapsed mode since December, 2008. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Insurance Company and referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, III (2013) CPJ page 203 (NC), Avtar Singh Dhillon Versus H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company ltd. &Others, III (2012) CPJ Page 133. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP No.1 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally with held the genuine claim of the complainant and huge amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- is lying with the OP No.2 Insurance Company since its deposit. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the terms and conditions of the insurance policy  specifically clause No.5 in which guidelines regarding surrendered, cancelled, lapsed and paid up policies has been specified by the OP No.2 Insurance Company and lastly requested for acceptance of the complaint.

11.                   It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the insurance policy bearing No. 10817954 HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy Sar Utha Ke Jiyo and paid first premium of Rs. 99,000/- from the OP No.2 Insurance Company which is duly evident from the copy of first premium receipt Annexure C-2 and forwarding letter alongwith photo copy of insurance policy Annexure C-3 and C-4. It is also not disputed that complainant paid 2 installments of Rs. 99,000/- each i.e.total Rs. 1,98,000/- to the Op No.2 Insurance Company. It is not the case of the complainant that he never received the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as he has placed on file forwarding letter alongwith insurance policy dated 03.01.2007 Annexure c-3 and C-4. We have perused the forwarding letter Annexure C-3 dated 03.01.2007 in which the OP No.2 Insurance Company has clearly mentioned that “you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reason thereof within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy” but the complainant never returned the insurance policy in question to OP No.2 Insurance Company. Moreover, it is also not the case of the complainant that under the policy in question he was not asked to deposit the premium atleast for 3 years as he has himself admitted in the policy in question in para No.6 but he paid only 2 installments and after that policy was in lapsed mode. Although, the complainant has paid 2 installments and not paid the third installment even then it cannot be held that complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the OPs Insurance Company. Even, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy there was only three (3) years lock in period and after the lapse of three (3) year the insurance company was bound to pay “ as per clause 5( C) surrendered, cancelled, lapsed and paid up policies-If the lapsed policy is not revived, unitized fund value at the date of lapse less surrender charges as specified in the schedule of charges would be paid to the policy holder at the end of 2 years from the date of lapse or at the end of 3 years from inception, whichever is later”

10.                   In the present case, it is not disputed that the policy in question was issued on 31.12.2006 and the first premium was also paid on 31.12.2006 and the second yearly premium was also paid by the complainant and the policy in question lapsed in the year December, 2008 and the complainant did not revive the policy in question. So, the OP No.2 Insurance Company was bound to refund the surrender value of the policy in question w.e.f the date of lapse of the policy in question, which has not been refunded to the complainant which constitute the deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 Insurance Company. The case law referred by the counsel for OP No.2 are not disputed but not helpful in the present case as the huge amount of the complainant i.e. Rs. 1,98,000/- is lying with the OPs Insurance Company since its deposit. Now a days, agents of the insurance companies are collecting the premium from the innocent persons in the society after showing manipulated dreams just to get their high commissions in the policies given by the insurance companies and insurance companies are denying to pay the invested money of the people on one pretext or the other. Even, the Insurance Companies are not bothered to file any account statement or cogent evidence in regard to investment of the monies against these policies. On the one hand insurance companies are taking defence that complainant has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the insurance policies whereas on the other hand, the OP No.2 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally withheld the amount of the complainant as per clause 5 ( C) mentioned above under the head clause 5 ( C) surrendered, cancelled, lapsed and paid up policies.

11                    In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for some relief. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

12                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.2 Insurance Company to refund the surrender value alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of lapse of policy i.e. 19.12.2008 till its actual realization and further to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 13.01.2017.

 

                                 (S.C.SHARMA )                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                  MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT,

                                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F,YAMUNANAGAR