Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/328/2014

Trivender Mohan S/o madan Lala - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.D.F.C dtandard Life INsurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No.328 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 04.08.2014

                                                                                    Date of decision:21.06.2016

Trivender Mohan aged about 55 years son of Shri Madan Lal, resident of House No. 1349/24, Vishnu Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mill Compound, N.M Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 through its Vice President. 
2. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Office at Plot No.1/75, First Floor, Opposite Nira Bazar, Yamuna Nagar, through its Sr. Vice President.

 

                                                                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Complainant in person.

              Sh. Atul Pandey, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Trivender Mohan 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 complainant obtained a home loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- from M/s HDFC Bank Ltd. in the year July 2011. At the time of disbursement of the loan, official of the HDFC Bank compelled to the complainant to take an insurance policy to cover this loan and in this process they got signed from the complainant and his wife namely Sushma on some blank papers and also obtained a cheque of Rs. 26000/- on account of premium of the policy in question. When the insurance policy bearing No. 14520965 came to the house of the complainant, the complainant saw that policy in question was in the name of his wife Sushma and further the policy in question was made for single annual premium of Rs. 26000/- instead of monthly payment. After that complainant requested the respondents (hereinafter referred as Ops) so many times but all in vain due to which the complainant could not pay the next premium.

3.                     Again in October, 2013 complainant received a phone call from one Mrs. Nisha Aggarwal of Delhi that the payment of above noted policy bearing No. 14520965 will be repaid to the complainant with interest if they are ready to obtain second insurance policy and the amount will be paid by merging both the policies upto 15^th February, 2014. On the assurance, the complainant took another O.D. Loan from the PNB Bank and dispatched DD No. 318173 dated 14.10.2013 amounting to Rs. 20,000/- to her address and received second policy bearing No. 16379506 from the Ops Insurance Company. From the perusal of the Insurance Policy, complainant came to know that he has to pay Rs. 19401/- per year for 10 years and Rs. 1,18,958/- will be insured/ returned after 10 years. After March, 2014, the complainant asked (to Mrs. Nisha Aggarwal of Delhi) to refund the amount of both the policies but she refused to do the same. Lastly prayed that in this way, she cheated the complainant for her own profit of 35% of the amount of the premium every year and requested to allow the complaint with the direction to the Ops to refund the amount of Rs. 26000+20000+11360 i.e. total Rs. 57360/- amount/interest to the complainant.

4.                     In support of his complaint, complainant filed his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and affidavit of Smt. Sushma as Annexure CW/B and documents such as photo copy of confirmation letter dated 04.09.2011 issued by the Ops in respect of policy bearing No. 14520965 as Annexure C-1 and C-2, Photo copy of confirmation letter in respect of second policy bearing No. 16379506 dated 24.10.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of receipt of payment of premium of Rs. 19401/- as Annexure C-4,  Photo copy of payment of premium of Rs. 20,000/- dated 21.10.2013 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter of acknowledgement of complaint of policy bearing No. 16379506 dated 27.5.2015 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of complaint as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of e-mail dated 8.3.2014 as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of voter card I.D. as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of cheque amounting to Rs. 20,000/- as Annexure C-10, Photo copy of courier receipt dated 27.09.2013 as Annexure C-11, Photo copy of envelope as Annexure C-12 and C-13, Photo copy of e-mail dated 19.04.2014 and 12.04.2014 as Annexure C-14 and C-15, Photo copy of loan account statement as Annexure C-16 and closed his evidence.

5.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as Ops Insurance Company is a life Insurance Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 as well as Insurance Act 1938; complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; without jurisdiction; complaint is not maintainable as true beneficiary in such case is Mrs. Sushma Devi and she never raised any objection; the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is victim of spurious calls and fictitious offers and IRDA alongwith all insurance companies many times issued cautions the public against such fraud calls in media, newspapers etc.; the present complaint is false as the Ops offered the complainant for cancellation of the said policy in free look period and the complainant has option to return the policy within 30 days from the receipt of policy but the complainant never requested for cancellation of the policy within the free look period; complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; the present complaint is not filed within the four corner of law as the complainant and policy holder Mrs. Sushma enjoyed all insurance cover during the insurance period and never paid further premium as per insurance contract and now demanding unlawful amount after violating the insurance contract and on merit it has been admitted that policy holder Mrs. Sushma herself has obtained unit link policy after understanding the features and benefits of the said policy in question. The policy holder Mrs. Sushma and complainant understood the contract of the insurance and its terms and conditions but they never continued contract for insurance by not paying the premium in agreed manner. The said policy was issued in September 2011 and the policy holder never raised any objections about any terms and conditions of the said policy, it means that she was fully satisfied with the said policy and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     In support of their version, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Associate Manager Legal as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copies of Public Notice issued by IRDA in respect of fictitious calls as Annexure R-1 and R-2, Photo copy of confirmation for assignment of first policy bearing No. 14520965 dated 09.09.2011 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of forwarding letter dated 03.09.2011 alongwith insurance policy bearing No. 14520965 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dated 31.08.2011 as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of unit link statement dated 03.09.2011 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form in the name of Sushma wife of Trivender Mohan as Annexure R-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

7.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

8.                     Without going into the merit of the case and after hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

9.                     From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure C-2 and C-3 bearing No. 14520965 dated 04.08.2011 in the name of Mrs. Sushma and second policy bearing No. 16379506 dated 21.10.2013 in the name of complainant, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Unit Linked Policies called HDFC, S.L. Pro Growth Flexi and HDFC SL Classic Assure Insurance Plan in the name of his wife as well as in his own name issued by the Ops in the year 2011 and 2013 respectively. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed

10.                   Further, the version of the complainant that the Ops have wrongly issued the first insurance policy in his wife’s name whereas the complainant obtained the loan in his own name from the HDFC Bank is not tenable as the said policy bearing No. 14520965 had been obtained by the complainant in his wife’s name on 04.08.2011 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 04.08.2014 i.e. after a period of near about 3 years. Meaning thereby that the complainant was having the knowledge of the insurance policy since its purchase but no step has been taken by him for a period of 3 years. Even, further the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. Further, the version of the complainant is falsified from the other angle also as the complainant obtained the second policy bearing No. 16379506 dated 21.10.2013 in his own name from the Ops. So, it cannot be said that first policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. Moreover, for the sake of argument, if it be assumed that the officials of the Ops or one lady named Nisha Aggarwal of Delhi have cheated the complainant then the complainant is at liberty to file a complaint before the Civil/Criminal Court. Learned counsel for the Ops draw out attention towards the terms and conditions of the policy in question Annexure R-4 in which it has been specifically mentioned that all unit linked insurance policies will have a lock-in period of 5 years and referred the case law titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium and also referred the case law titled as Resham Devi Versus The New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Others, 2014(3) CLT Page 328.  

11.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the Ops had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

12.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievances, if so advised and further OPs Insurance Company is directed to proceed the Insurance Policy as per its terms and conditions. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy 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 21.06.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.