KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.28/08
JUDGMENT DATED: 9/2/2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
E.M.Babu, : Complainant
Erumala House,
Karukudam,
Kothamangalam.P.O.,
Ernakulam.
(BY Adv.S.Reghukumar)
Vs.
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance : OPPOSITE PARTIES
2nd Floor,
‘A’ Wing,
Trade Star Buildings,
Andheri,
Kurla Road,
Andheri (E),
Mumbai
Rep.by its C.E.O.
2. Sreekumar.P.R.,
Business Development Manager,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance
Kayamkulam,
Karukayil Complex,
KMC-32 420A,
Near NH 47, Near City Hospital,
Kayamkulam 690 502.
3. Reghu.R HDFC Standard Life Insurance
Kayamkulam, Karukayil Complex,
KMC-32 420A, Near NH 47
Near City Hospital,
Kayamkulam 690 502.
(By Adv.Saji Isaac)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The complainant has sought for the return of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at 18% from 19.3.08 and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10000/- towards cost.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he is an NRI and working as Managing Director Euro-Emirates LIC at Dubai that he used to visit his home town at Kothamangalam every month. On 17.3.08 one Mr.Reghu/3rd opposite party claimed to be the agent of the opposite party/Insurance Company met the complainant at his residence and canvassed the policy of HDFC standard life insurance. He was also told that the policy will be dispatched within 15 days of the receipt of the proposal and that the complainant will get 15 days time from the date of receipt of the policy to return the policy if he is not satisfied with the terms. Hence he decided to subscribe to two HDFC unit linked Pension Plus Scheme policies. As requested by the 3rd opposite party the copies of the passport and visiting card of the complainant was handed over and affixed his signatures in the blank proposal forms and he assured that he will fill up the details in the proposal form. He has also stated that the additional form is also necessary as the complainant is an NRI. The complainant handed over two cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- each to the agent on 17.3.08 the cheques were encashed on 23.3.08. The proof details of income was also furnished. Thereafter he did not receive the policy and made several telephone calls in the first week of the April onwards and it was informed that he will receive the policy shortly. Thereafter he sent an Email to Sreekumar, Business Development Manager/2nd opposite party dated 3rd May 2008 informing that he has not received the policy. On 6th May 2008 the complainant received the policy at his home address and he was stunned to observe the following facts: a) A stranger’s address is shown as the home address. The above address is not stated in the passport or in the visiting card given at the time of making the proposal; b) The documents were set to an address which is unknown to the complainant; c) the address disclosed at the time of making of the proposal was that stated in the passport; d) The complainant was denied access to the documents till May 6th 2008. In the reply Email sent by Sreekumar on 5th May 2008 it was informed that 10% service charges was already deducted from the total investment which was not informed to the complainant at any point of time. The above act itself constituted unfair trade practice. All the above facts were conveyed to Mr.Harsha Gupta, Private Banking Group and Mr.Farid Ahamed, the Relationship Manager of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance and also sought for the refund of the money invested. The said request was made within 15 days of receipt of policy. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties, inorder to cover their negligence has introduced a stranger into the transaction by name Miss Miya Alex. In the e-mail dated 5.5.08 it is stated that the policy documents were sent to temporary address of Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumpamon.P.O., Pandalam and the same was received by Miss Miya Alex on 13th April 2008. It was further mentioned that the particular business lead was generated by Miss Miya Alex, the niece of the complainant and that she requested to sent the documents to the temporary address because of the complainant was out of station. It is further stated the business lead was generated by Miss Miya Alex, an Air Hostess residing at Pandalam, and the same was logged in the name of Mr.Reghu one of their licensed consultants because Miss Miya Alex do not have IRDA license for the consultancy. It is contended that the above facts mentioned in the e-mail is absolutely false. The complainant is not having any niece by name Miss Miya Alex. The said Miss Miya Alex is a total stranger to the complainant. There is collusion between the above Miss Miya Alex and Mr.Reghu, the agent/3rd opposite party. The e-mail is silent regarding the commission paid. The above collusion is evident by introduction of the address that is Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumpamon.P.O. Pandalam. The 3rd opposite party has deliberately incorporated a stranger’s address stating that she is the complainant’s relation. The passport copy and the visiting card handed over contained the home address of the complainant at Ernakulam and the official address of the complainant at Dubai. In the proposal form there is a specific column to incorporate the home address and a tick mark in the proposal form is made against the home address. Incorporating a stranger’s address in the home address column constituted unfair trade practice. The name of home address of the wife who is the nominee is correctly incorporated. The home address of the complainant and his wife are the same.
The opposite parties have filed joint version totally denying the allegations. It is stated that the complainant is working in Dubai and is educated. The case that the complainant signed the blank proposal form is false. The proposal form was filled up and handed over to the opposite parties by the complainant and the complainant has affixed his signature agreeing to the terms of the proposal. The address to which the complainant wished to receive documents and other communications has been stated in the proposal form by the complainant himself and the policy was dispatched by the opposite parties to the address in which the complainant wanted to receive the documents. The permanent address provided by the complainant in the proposal form is different from the address to which the complainant wanted to receive the documents as stated in the proposal. The complainant had agreed to the payment of all charges as stipulated from time to time and deduction of the charges was made from the premium as provided in the policy. The complainant had the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy. The policy was dispatched and received in the address to which the complainant had stated in the proposal form and the option of returning the policy was not exercised by the complainant within 15 days. The address in the proposal form was given by the complainant. The allegation of collusion between Miss Miya Alex and Reghu is denied. In the home address shown by the complainant in the proposal form is Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumbamon.P.O.,Pandalam and the same address is shown as the address to which documents and correspondence are to be sent to the complainant by the opposite parties. The policy was also delivered in the same address. The allegation of unfair trade practice is denied.
The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and by the Zonal Legal Manager of the opposite party and Exts.P1 to P5 and R1 and R2.
In that Ext.P3 is the e-mail dated 3.5.08 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, the genuineness of which is not in dispute. In Ext.P3 reference is made to telephone call made. It is mentioned that he has not in receipt of the documents relating to the investment. He has sought for the logging period, the details of deductions and whether the appreciation in the investment is taxable and the name of the individual under whose name the investment is logged. Ext.P4 e-mail dated 15.5.08 is from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant mentioning that investment documents were sent to the temporary address of Pulinilkunnath House, Thumpamon.P.O., Pandalam and the same was received by Miss.Miya Alex on 13th April 2008. It is further stated that the particular business was generated by Miss Miya Alex the niece of the complainant and that she requested to sent the documents to the temporary address because the complainant is out of station. It is also further stated that the business was generated by Miss Miya Alex the Air Hostess residing at Pandalam and the same was logged in the name of Mr.Reghu one of their licensed Consultants because Miss.Miya Alex did not have IRDA license for the consultancy. Ext.P5 is the e-mail dated 14.5.08 from the complainant to Mr.Harsha Gupta, Private Banking Group and Farid Ahamed Relationship Manager. Therein the complainant has alleged that he had to chase for documents pertaining to the investment and that he was informed that the documents were sent to the address which is unknown to him. It is further mentioned that he is not clear as to why such important documents have been sent to a third party when his Indian address is clearly mentioned in the passport copy. It is also mentioned that it is seen that 10% service charges is already taken from his investment and that the same was never informed to him and the same amounted to concealment of vital facts. If the terms and conditions were explained to him he would not have signed in the application. He signed in the application (proposal) blindly with good intention and on the explanation of the agent. He has sought for return of the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- together with interest immediately.
As noted above both sides have filed proof affidavits supporting the respective contentions. No proof affidavit was filed by the 3rd opposite party agent who alone could have directly denied the case of the complainant ie, signed in a blank proposal form. Exts. R1 and R2 are the copies of the respective proposal forms wherein the mailing address of documents is mentioned as C/o P.E.Alex, Pulinilkunnathu House , Thumpaman.P.O., Pandalam, Kerala and Pincode. The permanent address of the complainant mentioned is as Erumala House, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam, Kerala with pin code. On an examination of R1 and R2 proposal forms we find that almost all the columns with respect to the details of the time at work, traveling, activities and also with respect to the entire particulars as to the personal medical details and as to whether he is he used to consume alcohol and use tobacco, column as to his previous illness and treatment, column with respect to his existing illness etc.etc. are left blank. There is signature of the complainant in the end at page 11 of both the proposal forms. We find the above is an indication that the case of the complainant that he signed in the blank proposal form is likely to be correct. Further the case of the complainant that he had handed over the passport copy and his visiting card appears true as the photocopies of the same are incorporated along with the policy documents ie, P1 and P2. Further we find that the opposite party have not produced any objective evidence to prove that the policy documents were despatched within 15 days. In fact there is no mention in the version at all as to the date of despatch of the policy documents. It is only Ext.P4 copy of e-mail of the 2nd opposite party to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that the policy documents were received by Miss Miya Alex on 13th April 2008. Nowhere it is mentioned the date on which the policy documents were dispatched. The address of Miss Miya Alex as such is not mentioned in Ext.R1 and R2. In the policy document the address of the policy holder is mentioned as Mr.Erumala Mathew Babu C/o P.E.Alex, Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumpaman.P.O., Pandalam, Kerala with pin code. As to how Miss Miya Alex received the policy documents is not explained. Further we find that it is not the case of the opposite parties that the policy documents were sent in the mailing address of the complainant mentioned in Ext.R1 and R2 proposals. What has been mentioned is that the policy documents were sent to the temporary address of Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumpaman.P.O., Pandalam and the same has been received by Miss Mia Alex 13th April, 2008, Further it is mentioned that the business lead was generated by Miss Mia Alex and further that the same was logged in the name of Mr.Reghu(the 3rd opposite party) one of their licensed Consultants because Miss Mia Alex do not have IRDA license for consultancy. The above admission itself would show that opposite parties have evaded the IRDA conditions. The case that Miss Miya Alex is the niece of the complainant has not been sought to be established. There is no such case in the proof affidavit filed by the Zonal Legal Manger on behalf of the opposite parties. Hence we find that the case of the opposite parties that the complainant provided the address of Miss Miya Alex as his temporary address and that Miss Miya Alex is the niece of the complainant stands not proved. Evidently the complainant has received the policy documents only on 6.3.08 and he has sought for return of the amount vide e-mail dated 14.5.08. The complainant is entitled for 15 days time from the date of receipt of the policy documents to return the documents and that was done within the option time. Hence he entitled for return of the investment. We find that it is not denied that the cheque was encashed on 23.3.08. In the circumstances the opposite parties are directed to return the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at 7% per annum till realization from 23.3.08 the date of encashment. The complainant is also entitled for cost of Rs.10000/-. The amounts are to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 9.2.2011 the date of this order.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
