Punjab

Sangrur

CC/658/2014

Mohd.Anwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohd. Izhar

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  658                                                                  

                                                Instituted on:    17.12.2014

                                                Decided on:       03.06.2015

 

Mohd. Anwar Advocate son of Abdul Jabbar resident of Mohalla Araian. H. No.31/XV, Inside Sirhindi Gate, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                            ...Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     H.D.F.C. Bank, Club Chowk Malerkotla through its Branch Manager;

2.     H.D.F.C. Life Nabha Gate, Ist Floor near Snatan Dharam Mandir, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

3.     H.D.F.C. Life, Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills, Compound N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai through its M.D.                                                      

...Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Mohd. Izhar, Advocate.

For opposite party no.1:            Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate.

For opposite parties no.2&3:     Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order:

K.C.Sharma, Member

1.             Mohd. Anwar Advocate, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is customer of OP No.1.  In January 2013, the employee of OP No.1 namely Mohd. Rehan asked the complainant to provide his ID proof for waiver of penalty on the credit card. Thereafter the said Mohd. Rehan deducted Rs.61855/- from the account of the complainant. On enquiry,  Mr. Rehan told the complainant  that they deducted the amount towards  his  one year policy cum saving scheme with Ops No.2 and 3 and  assured that he would get 20% annual growth upon the policy amount after one year. The complainant astonished when he received SMS from HDFC life regarding next year instalment of Rs.60930/- then the complainant immediately approached the OPs.  It is alleged that the Ops sent a SMS in which first time he came to know about the number of policy i.e. 15782485. Again on enquiry, the Ops told that SMS is regarding life insurance policy premium amount.  The complainant told the OPs that he had never obtained any life insurance policy from the OPs. The Ops  told the complainant that he is paying monthly instalment towards his policy then  complainant told  that he is paying the amount towards  the policy cum saving plan for one year only as told by Mohd. Rehan, employee of OP No.1. The complainant requested the Ops to pay the amount of his policy cum saving plan along with growth of 20% per annum but they flatly refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to release the one year policy amount of Rs.61855/- cum saving scheme with annual growth of 20%. The complainant has further prayed for payment of Rs.20000/-   as compensation on account of mental torture, agony and to pay Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, legal objections on the grounds of the maintainability and suppression of material facts have been taken up.    On merits, it has been denied that in the month of January 2013 the employee of OP No.1 namely Mohd. Rehan asked the complainant to  provide his Id proof for waiver of penalty on the credit card.  It is submitted that it is not possible that any amount is deducted  from any account without the signatures of account holder. It is denied that Mohd. Rehal asked  the complainant that he deducted the amount for one year policy cum saving scheme with Ops No.2 and 3. It is submitted that  for obtaining the policy the signatures of policyholder are necessary for documents and policy is issued after taking the full consent of policyholder. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by OPs No.2&3, legal objections on the grounds of cause of action, locus standi, suppression of material facts, maintainability and jurisdiction have been taken up.  On merits,  it is submitted that the complainant approached OP No.2 to purchase  a policy of HDFC Children’s Maturity Benefit  and he applied online  for the same  and after that policy was issued to him.  The complainant submitted all the relevant documents and signed the proposal form in English after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is submitted that the complainant obtained the policy in January 2013 and it is very strange that he remained silent for one year.  If amount was deducted from his credit card he could have made the complaint immediately but he did not do it.  The complainant has approached the Forum after lapse of about two years from the date of purchase of policy.  If the complainant  was not satisfied with the policy he could have return the same even at that time as per free look-in period clause of the policy, but he remained silent.  Whereas the  terms of the policy was for 11 years, however, to the contrary the complainant failed to pay the renewal premium from the 2^nd  year onward.  The complainant never informed the Ops regarding  stopping of payment of renewal premiums neither  he made any request for the payment of any surrender value.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.2 and 3.

4.             In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.Ops2&3/2 and closed evidence.

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in this complaint is with regard to the issuance of policy number 15782485 by  the Ops No.2 and 3 through OP No.1  from where the complainant is availing banking and credit  facilities.

6.             The version of the complainant is that Mohd. Rehan employee of OP No.1 requested the complainant to provide his ID proof for waiver of penalty. But, from the perusal of the complaint and other documents, we do not find any mention  of any penalty in question  and its amount which was to be waived by the OP No.1. The complainant has himself submitted that  the amount was  deducted towards one year policy cum saving scheme of Ops No.2 and 3 and now the question is that when the same was in the knowledge of the complainant  that the amount has been deducted with regard to the policy then why the complainant had not taken any step for the cancellation of the same. Learned counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that if the policy was received by the complainant then the complainant remained silent  for one year and he has also not produced any evidence with regard to the taking up of the matter with the Ops for non-receiving of the policy.  Even after coming  to know about the policy the complainant has not exercised the option for cancellation of the policy within free look period.  The document Ex.C-2 dated 24.02.2014 is also not addressed to either of the Ops in which the complainant has lodged the complaint against Mr. Rehan. Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded as a party Mohd. Rehan who is an employee of OP No.1 in the present complaint. The document Ex.C-6 which has been written to the Ops No.2 and 3 is dated 22.05.2014 i.e. much after the knowledge that the policy has been issued to the complainant.

7.             The Ops No.2 and 3 has placed on record document Ex.Ops2&3/1 which includes proposal form besides other relevant policy documents. On perusal of this document we find that same has been signed  by the complainant in  English and all this shows that the complainant has opted for the policy and was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy as well.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Announced.

                June 3, 2015.

 

 

(Sarita Garg)           (K.C.Sharma)             (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

   Member                 Member                       President

 

 

       

                                                                                               

                                                                                   

BBS/-