West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/13/101

Ms. Itikana Samaddar, W/o Somtu Das, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Br. Manager, HDFC Life, Durgapur Branch, - Opp.Party(s)

G.M. Midhya

07 May 2015

ORDER

Ms. Itikana Samaddar, a policy holder of HDCF Standered Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a complaint against the Br. Manager, HDFC Life, Durgapur Branch and the Br. Manager, HDFC Bank, Suri, Birbhum. The complaint in brief is that Itikana Samaddar purchased a HDFC Unit Link Young Star Plan policy on 19/07/2006 with an initial annual premium of ₹ 30,000. She failed to pay the next annual premia. The policy was lapsed. The complainant approached the O.P No.1 to refund the premium amount (after observing terms and condition of the policy). She came to know from O.P No.1 that a cheque of ₹ 16,168.78p being No. 122593 dated 03.10.2007 was issued in favour of the complainant for final settlement. But she did not get it. On 08.04.2013 the complainant sent an advocates letter to O.P No.1for refund of her claim. The O.P sent a letter stating that as soon as possible he would arrange to settle the same. But till the date of filing the complaint no step was taken. Hence, the complainant came to the Forum.

O.P No.1 contested the case by filing written version. He stated that the complainant deposited a sum of ₹ 30,000 on 26.06.2006 for the purpose of HDFC Unit Link Young-star plan policy. Subsequently she failed to pay the premia. After six years she requested the O.P No.1 for withdrawal of such amount on 15.09.2012. Considering the circumstance and materials on record, O.P No.1 agreed to pay ₹ 16,168.78p against the complainants claim letter dated 30.04.2013, but the complainant raised objection to take the amount. O.P No.1was ready to pay the amount as per terms and condition of the policy.

O.P No.2 did not contest the case.

Upon pleadings of both parties the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether the case is barred by limitation or not?
2. Whether the O.Ps have deficiency in service or not?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Points No. 1), 2)& 3). All points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.

The fact is that the complainant deposited ₹ 30,000 on 19.06.2006 for the purpose of HDFC Unit Linked Youngstar Plan policy (Policy No. 10652677 and date of commencement of the policy 19.07.2006). The terms of the policy was 10years with annually installment premium of ₹ 30,000. The complainant could not continue the policy due to financial distress. She stopped payment from 2^nd​ annual premium.

The O.P stated that after six years i.e. on 15.09.2012 the complainant requested to refund the amount deposited by her. O.P No.1 also raised the point that the complainant could not file the complaint before the Forum within time limit. Therefore, it was barred by limitation.

On perusing the record it is seen that the cause of action arose on and from 30.04.2013 when O.P No.1 sent the letter in response to advocates letter of the complainant stating that the decision would be taken within a short period. Hence, the cause of action arose from that date. So, the case of the complainant is not barred by limitation.

O.P No.1 raised objection that the complainant submitted her claim after six years. The complainant stated that she approached O.P No.1 to refund the deposited amounts several times and O.P No.1 informed her that a cheque of ₹ 16,168.78p being No. 122593 dated 03.10.2007 had already been issued in the name of the complainant for full and final payment. The amount was calculated on the basis of unitized fund value minus surrender charges as per slandered policy provisions, provision No.5 (as per unit statement as on 19.07.2006, unitized fund value was ₹ 21,849.26p). But surprisingly, the complainant did not get the cheque. The O.P No.1 did not challenge against the statement of the complainant in respect of the cheque issued on 03.10.2007. Rather, he has admitted that he is ready to give the amount if the complainant accepts it. From this statement it is clear that O.P No.1 cancelled the policy within 03.10.2007. Now, the question may be raised why the O.P did not send the cheque to the complainant or did not inform the complainant to collect it. There was no whisper in this regard. The Forum thinks that this is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1.

The complainant is entitled to get the amount of ₹ 16,168.78p along with 10% interest on the amount from the date of 03.10.2007 to the date of actual payment of the amount. In addition to the above the complainant is entitled to get ₹ 5,000 as litigation cost.

Thus, all the points are discussed and disposed of in favour of the complainant.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 101/2013 be and the same is allowed in part against the O.P. No.1 with cost and dismissed against O.P No.2 without cost.

            O.P No.1 is directed to pay ₹ 16,168.78p along with 10% interest from 03.10.2007 to the date of actual payment and ₹ 5,000 as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from the date of this order failing which the complainant would be at liberty to take recourse to law.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.