This is an application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant’s short case is that he was insured under the HDFC Unit link pension policy being No.11823367 for the period from 3.5.2008 to 3.5.2013.That the said policy was single premium and the premium amount was Rs.5,00,000.00. The complainant duly deposited the said money as premium of the said policy on 3.5.2008.
The said policy had been matured on 3.5.2013 with a vesting proceed amounting to Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa after completion of full five years. The O.P. vide their letter dated 3.7.2013 informed the complainant about the maturity and also informed the complainant that they yet to receive duly filled annuity application form for the disbursement of the annuity income of the complainant. After receiving the letter the complainant became dissatisfaction regarding the management of his fund by the O.P.s. On 12.8.2013 the complainant categorically informed the O.P. not to continue the amount and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa after deduction of charges if any and after complying with the formalities which are required to be done of the said purpose. But the O.P. inspite of receiving of the said letter kept mum and did not take any steps to refund the maturity amount.
Thereafter on 06.09.2013 the O.P. sent a letter to the complainant informing him that the policy holder has the option to surrender a pension policy before the maturity date. Once the policy matured the policy attains a notional cash value. The policy holder has the option to withdraw maximum 1/3rd of notional cash value and the rest can be converted to annuities. The policy holder does not have the option to withdraw the complete notional cash value after the maturity and the O.P. vide their letter dated 17.9.2013 to express their in ability to refund the maturity amount i.e. Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa to the complainant, which is indicates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Ld. Forum for relief.
The O.P.s have contested the case by filing written version, denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them. The O.P.s have further stated that in or about April 2008, the complainant approached the O.P.s and expressed his willingness to avail a life insurance policy. Thereafter the O.P.s furnished the details of several policies including terms and conditions thereof. After understanding the same the complainant applied for one HDFC Unit Linked Pension (Single Premium).
As per terms and condition the complainant was required to pay a single premium of Rs.5,00,000.00. The policy term was five years. Upon his written application, a policy being No.11823367 was issued in favour of the complainant. The complainant also signed the illustration document which clearly states the working benefit, the terms and type of policy. The O.P. sent the original policy documents to the complainant which was duly received by him. The original policy documents as per Regulation 6(2) of Protection of Policy holder’s Interest Regulations, 2002, contained an option to return the policy within a period of 15 days i.e. the free look period, if the policy holder is not satisfied with the same. The complainant retained the original policy documents and never made any complaint from where it is evident that the complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions. The policy document specifically states the working benefit of the policy (Clause 3(i)(a).
As per terms and condition upon maturity of the policy the complainant could take a part of the total unitized fund value in the form of cash lump sum and the rest would be converted to an annuity at the rate the then offered by the O.P. At that time when the complainant availed the policy the complainant could take maximum one third of the total unitized value in cash and the remaining would be converted into annuity.
The policy of the complainant was supposed to mature on 3.5.2013 prior to date of maturity the O.P. sent an intimation dated 12.3.2013 to the complainant intimating that his policy would mature on 3.5.2013. Even after maturity of the policy the O.P. company duly filled up annuity application from the complainant. The O.P. by its reminder dated 3.7.2013 and 5.8.2013 again requested the complainant to send the annuity application for disbursement of the amount but complainant did not do the same. Hence this case prayed for prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Point for consideration in this case is;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice acted by the O.P.s in this case?
DECISION WITH REASON
Admittedly complainant deposited single premium of Rs.5,00,000.00 on 3.5.2008 for unit link pension policy which was scheduled to be matured on 3.5.2013 with a vesting proceed amount of Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa after completion of five years. But the dispute has cropped up when on maturity complainant did not get the same amount from the O.P. The O.P. has claimed that since clause 3(i)(a) already attract the complainant will only get 1/3rd of the notional amount and rest amount will be converted to annuities, particularly when free looked period of 15 days already over and complainant did not inform the O.P. regarding dissatisfaction of the said term. So, this term of clause-3(i)(a) is clearly binding.
We have considered the both parties case and applying our common sense to provide natural justice and we find normally when anybody attracts to get a policy then normally all these pros and cons is not discussed or understood the innocent complainant. Herein the instant case if the complainant is really aware the clause-3(i)(a) of the policy itself then definitely he would not avail the said policy which is clear when the complainant is not interested for annuity option form inspite of reminder from the authorized signatory of O.P. If the complainant was aware regarding the said option then definitely he would do the needful regarding annuity option form. All these things is after the payment of single premium of Rs.5,00,000.00 on 3rd May, 2008. So this ambiguity in the contents of the policy is nothing but a unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s, for which the complainant came before this Forum to get proper redress in the matter and we find that it is practically impossible for any consumer to know the clause of 3(i)(a) of the policy itself unless the same is narrated properly to the consumer before obtaining the policy and in the present case the same was not narrated to the complainant, for which we find that non-refund of maturity value of Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa is a deficiency of service from the O.P.s. Accordingly it is
ORDERED
that application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act is allowed on contest against the O.P.s. The O.P.s are directed to release Rs.6,06,189.94 paisa which is the maturity value of the policy within 45 days from the date of order, in default, interest will carry @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order till its realization. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost within that period to the complainant. In default, the complainant is at liberty to recover the amount through this Forum. Let the plain copy of this order be handed over all the parties free of cost.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
