Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 301.
Instituted on : 19.08.2020.
Decided on : 07.06.2021.
Vinod s/o Sh. Ram Phal R/o H.No.95, Lakhan Majra, Rohtak at present r/o Shiv colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- DHFL Home Loans, office at D Park Rohtak through its Manager.
- DHFL Pramerica Life Ins. Co. Ltd. Registered office at 4th Floor Building No.9 Tower-B Cyber City DLF Phase 3 Gurugram 122002 through its Manager.
…..……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
MS.TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Argued: Sh.Mannu Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant intended to purchase/construct the house in Shiv colony, Rothak. Hence he approached the opposite party no.1 for grant of house loan. Complainant submitted all the relevant papers to respondent no.1 and also completed all the formalities. The respondent No.1 after getting themselves satisfied, granted the loan worth Rs.1600000/- for a term of 20 years. The said loan was repayable by the complainant in monthly installments as per E.M.I.schedule. Opposite party allured the complainant to obtain insurance plan of respondent no.2 and told that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.25200/- for a period of 7 years and after completion of 10 years, the complainant will get more than Rs.350000/- from the respondent no.2. Complainant obtained insurance policy No.00558108 from respondent no.2 and authorized his banker namely State Bank of India, Branch Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak for auto-debit. But the opposite party No.2 has debited two installments in the month of December 2019. Complainant made a complaint on customer care and the attendant of customer care told the complainant that he has some misunderstanding regarding the insurance plan & its maturity amount and it was also told that the complainant has to pay the installments continuously for a period of 10 years and thereafter he will get the payable amount plus Rs.50000/- only or a total sum of Rs.300000/-. Complainant immediately asked the attendant of customer care of opposite party no.2 to cancel the policy and to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest but no satisfactory reply has been received from the respondent no.2. Complainant also apprised the opposite party no.1 that the insurance plan has been issued by misleading the complainant. Opposite party no.1 assured the complainant for doing the needful in the matter but after some time changed its words and threatened the complainant that if he will not pay the installments, the amount payable by the complainant will be forfeited. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to cancel the insurance policy and to refund the amount of Rs.75000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is vehemently denied that the complainant was allured that he had to pay Rs.25200/- for 7 years and after completion of 10 years, he would get more than Rs.350000/- from the answering opposite party and the complainant is put to strict proof of his statement. It is submitted that the complainant is an educated person and he filled the proposal form and in the clause 44 of the same, it is clearly mentioned that the premium payment terms is 10 years and sum assured is Rs.265265/- only and not Rs.350000/-. It is further submitted that the account of the complainant was debited twice due to inadvertent error of system of the company and when the answering opposite party realized that error, it had promptly refunded that amount in the account of the complainant on 16.01.2020. The complainant was well aware of the policy and in the policy documents also, the details of the insurance contract such as premium payment term and sum assured etc. are clearly mentioned. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to cancel the insurance policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, complainant has given up opposite party No.1 being unnecessary party vide his statement dated 29.12.2020.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.12.2020. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/6 and closed his evidence on 24.02.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the grievance of complainant is that he had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent no.2 and at the time of obtaining the same, respondent no.2 told that the complainant that he has to pay a sum of Rs.25200/- for a period of 7 years and after completion of 10 years, the complainant will get more than Rs.350000/- from the respondent no.2. Complainant obtained insurance policy No.00558108 from respondent no.2 and authorized his banker namely State Bank of India, Branch Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak for auto-debit. But the opposite party No.2 has debited two installments in the month of December 2019 and on enquiry, he was told that the complainant has to pay the installments continuously for a period of 10 years and thereafter he will get the payable amount plus Rs.50000/- only or a total sum of Rs.300000/-. Complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to cancel the policy and to refund the deposited amount but the same was refused by the opposite party No.2.
6. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party No.2 is that complainant himself filled the proposal form and in the clause 44 of the same, it is clearly mentioned that the premium payment terms is 10 years and sum assured is Rs.265265/- only and not Rs.350000/-. It is further contended that the account of the complainant was debited twice due to inadvertent error of system of the company and when the answering opposite party realized that error, it had promptly refunded that amount in the account of the complainant on 16.01.2020. To prove this fact, opposite party No.2 has placed on record copy of proposal form Ex.R2/3, policy document Ex.R2/5 and letter Ex.R2/6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed written arguments and has placed reliance upon the law laid down by Ho’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled “Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. M/s Garg sons International” 2013(1)CPC 192, case titled as “Vikram Greentech(I) Ltd. and another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009(4)CLT 313 and case titled “Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009(2)CLT 15”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that a minute perusal of proposal form Ex.R2/3 reveals that at Sr. No.44, in the column of premium payment term is shown as 10 years but there is cutting/alteration on the same. Firstly the original proposal form not has not been placed on record by the opposite party no.2. Moreover it is not proved on file that the same was filled by the complainant himself or by the agent of company as most of the proposal forms are filled by the agent of company and the customer only signs the same. In the present case also, as per the complainant, he has not filled the proposal form and has only signed at the place of signature. The alteration, if any, has been made by the opposite party or its agent himself. It is also not proved on file that the policy document Ex.R2/5 has been duly served to the complainant as the track consignment placed on record Ex.R2/4 does not bear the name of consignee/complainant. Hence it is not proved that the policy alongwith terms and conditions have been served to the complainant. As such there is misrepresentation as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 in issuing the policy to the complainant. The law cited above by ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. As such complainant is entitled for the refund of amount paid by him. As per the statement of account placed on record by the complainant Ex.C4, the first installment of Rs.25200/- was paid through DD/cheque and thereafter two installments amounting to Rs.24657/- were paid through auto debit from his account. The account of the complainant was debited twice due to inadvertent error of system of the company but lateron the said amount was refunded in the account of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of three instalments paid by him amounting to Rs.25200/- + Rs.24657/- + Rs.24657/- total Rs.74514/-.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of Rs.74514/-(Rupees seventy four thousand five hundred and fourteen only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its realization to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
07.06.2021.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
