Haryana

StateCommission

CCNo/26/2015

Santosh Tyagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Branch Office Sadar - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Consumer Complaint No:  26A of 2015

Date of Institution: 27.03.2015

Date of Decision: 24.01.2017

 

Santosh Tyagi widow of Shri Ramakant Sharma, Resident of Village Kalsana, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      HDFC Bank Branch Office Sadar, Ambala Cantt, District Ambala through its Branch Manager.

2.      Gurpreet Sabarwal, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Office Sadar Ambala Cantt, District Ambala.

3.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Sector 43-B, Branch Chandigarh.

                                      Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member             

 

Argued by:          Mrs. Santosh Tyagi-complainant in person alongwith Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate.

                             Shri Sunil Narang, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.

                             Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Santosh Tyagi –Complainant has filed the present complaint averring that she is an illiterate lady; she is maintaining account No.01311000141964 and 0602300002429 with HDFC Bank –Opposite Party No.1.  After death of her husband, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the complainant. The complainant approached Gurpreet Sabarwal-Opposite Party No.2, the then Branch Manager of Opposite Party No.1 for depositing the above said amount against Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). The Branch Manager of the bank assured that the amount had been deposited for one year in fixed deposit. The complainant further submitted that after one year when she wanted to encash the FDR, she was told that the bank had purchased five different Life Insurance Policies from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, for the period of ten years instead of depositing the amount in fixed deposit. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed the instant complaint seeking refund of the amount along with interest @ 24% per annum besides compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- litigation expenses.

2.                During the pendency of complaint, an application being filed by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘HDFC Life’ was also added as one of the Opposite Parties.

3.                The Opposite Parties contested the complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 in its written version denied that the amount was transferred in the accounts maintained by the complainant on account of death of her husband. It was also denied that she approached the bank for depositing the amount in FDR for one year. Rather the complainant had signed cheques for withdrawal/transfer of the amount and purchased the policies by filling up proposal forms.

4.                Opposite Party No.2 –Gurpreet Sabarwal in his separate written submission also denied that the complainant ever approached him for depositing the amount in the shape of FDR. The complainant was interested in purchasing the insurance policies and willingly purchased the policies by filling up the proposal forms and by issuing cheques in favour of HDFC Life.

5.                Opposite Party No.3- HDFC Life filed separate written version and stated that the complainant Santosh Tyagi purchased six different insurance policies for ten years details of which are as under:-

Sr.No.	Proposal dated	Name of the Plan	Policy Number & date of issue	Sum Assured	Premium amount in Rs.	Term & Frequency	Present Status
1	7.1.2009	Saving Assurance Plan	12529748 (8.1.2009)	420108	50,000	10 Yrs, Annual	Surrendered & value paid
2	7.7.2009	-do-	13021118(14.7.09)	2105596	250000	10 Yrs, Annual	Lapsed since 14.7.2010
3	29.12.09	-do-	13357372 (30.12.2009)	4212456	499999	10 Yrs, Annual	Lapsed since 30.12.10
4	29.12.09	-do-	13357491 (30.12.2009)	4212456	500000	10 Yrs, Annual	Lapsed since 30.12.10
5	29.12.09	-do-	13357459 (30.12.2009)	4212456	500000	10 Yrs, Annual	Lapsed since 30.12.10
6	12.08.10	-do-	13854074 (14.08.2010)	841471	99999	10 Yrs, Annual	Lapsed since 14.08.11

 

6.                It was stated that the complainant surrendered one of the policies purchased on 07.01.2009, bearing No.12529748 and was paid the surrender value of Rs.1,08,696/- and the same was accepted by the complainant without any protest. Rest of the policies lapsed on different dates as detailed above. At the time of purchasing the policies, the complainant had signed the proposal forms. The complainant could have returned the policies within the stipulated free look period of 15 days which she did not return. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.                In evidence complainant Santosh Tyagi has appeared as CW-1 and tendered documents Exhibits C-1 to C-8.

8.                Opposite Parties examined Amit Khanna, Deputy Manager, HDFC Life as OPW-1, Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal as OPW-2, Nanoo Makhija-Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited as OPW-3; Sumit Kumar-Forensic Documents Expert as OPW-4 and tendered following documents:-

1	Authority Letter	Exhibit OP3/A
2	Application form	Exhibit OP3/4
3	Letter regarding Standing Instructions	Exhibit OP3/5
4	Policy Serving request	Exhibit OP3/6
5	Surrender Value of Policy	Exhibit OP3/7
6	Application form	Exhibit OP3/8
7	Vernacular Declaration	Exhibit OP3/9
8	Letter regarding Standing Instructions	Exhibit OP3/10
9	Policy	Exhibit OP3/11
10	Policy details	Exhibit OP3/12
11	Consultant Confidential Report	Exhibit OP3/13
12	Application form	Exhibit OP3/14
13	Vernacular Declaration	Exhibit OP3/15
14	Quotations	Exhibit OP3/16 to OP3/17
15	Consultant Confidential Report	Exhibit OP3/18
16	Policy No.13357372	Exhibit OP3/19
17	Application form	Exhibit OP3/20
18	Quotation	Exhibit OP3/21
19	Consultant Confidential Report	Exhibit OP3/22
20	Vernacular Declaration	Exhibit OP3/23
21	Letter regarding Standing Instruction for premium payment	Exhibit OP3/24
22	Policy No.13357491	Exhibit OP3/24A
23	Application form	Exhibit OP3/25
24	Letter regarding Standing Instruction for premium payment	Exhibit OP3/26
25	Quotation	Exhibit OP3/27
26	Vernacular Declaration	Exhibit OP3/28
27	Policy No.13357459	Exhibit OP3/28A
28	Application form	Exhibit OP3/29
29	Vernacular Declaration	Exhibit OP3/30
30	Letter regarding Standing Instruction for premium payment	Exhibit OP3/31
31	Consultant Confidential Report	Exhibit OP3/32
32	Policy No.13854074	Exhibit OP3/33

 

9.                Arguments heard. File perused.

10.              The complainant in her affidavit denied having purchased any policies and on being cross-examined also denied having issued any cheque.  She even denied having received any policy. She also denied having filled up the proposal forms. However on being cross-examined and being confronted with her signature on the proposal forms, she admitted her photographs and signature. However, at some places she denied her signature.

11.              OPW.1 –Amit Khanna in his affidavit (Exhibit OPW1/A) reiterated the facts stated in the written version and tendered documents viz. Authority letters, Application Forms, letters regarding standing instructions; Policy Serving Requests and Surrender value of policies.  Gurpreet Singh Sabharwal, the then Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Limited appeared as OPW-2 and stated that he had no concern with respect to the dispute of the complainant. This witness tendered his affidavit Exhibit OPW2/A. OPW3- Nanoo Makhija-Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited tendered his affidavit Exhibit OPW3/A.  OPW4-Sumit Kumar, Forensic Documents Expert has proved the signature of the complainant on all the documents with which the complainant was confronted with. He also produced statement of account of the complainant.

12.              Though the complainant has stated that her husband died on March 31^st, 2008. However, the statement of account produced by the opposite parties shows that the account was in operation since 2003 and even after death of her husband, there has been extensive transaction entries ranging from Rs.1.00 lac to Rs.33.00 lacs and the transaction entries indicate to be relating to Mutual Funds of different Companies. Not only that, the complainant has even raised loan against pledge of shares. The statement of account up to July, 2016 has been placed on the file, which shows regular operation of the account.  Therefore, it cannot be believed that the complainant was not aware of the purchase of the policies. The trend of operations in the accounts and complainant raising loan by pledge of shares, shows that she was doing regular transactions in shares. However, taking the totality of circumstances into account and taking it to be admitted fact that she has purchased the policies of her own and that she was well aware of those policies, this Commission is of the considered view that the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the same. The complainant is bound by the terms of the policy.

13.              Having take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the plea raised by the complainant.  However, the Insurance Company may consider the date of lapse of policies as the date of surrender of the policies and the amount, if any payable under the policies be released to the complainant.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 24.01.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL