Punjab

Sangrur

CC/447/2016

Rajwant Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Nandpuri

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  447

                                                Instituted on:    13.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.12.2016

 

Rajwant Kaur wife of late Shri Kulwinder Singh, Village Baberpur, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Ltd. Chaunda Road, Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Ward No.3, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

3.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited,  Corporate & Registered Office: Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 through its GM/MD.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri S.S.Punia, Advocate

For OPs No.2&3       :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Smt. Rajwant Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the husband of the complainant, Shri Kulwinder Singh was having a saving bank account number 50100037370574 with OP number 1 and, as such, he took an insurance policy number 17150648-HDFC SL Crest from the OPs during his lifetime on 28.10.2014 with annum premium of Rs.50,000/- and the sum assured under the policy was Rs.5,00,000/-.  The complainant was the nominee under the policy in question. It is further averred that the complainant took the policy at Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla Distt. Sangrur and the premium of the policy was automatically deducted from the above said bank account.  Further case of the complainant is that the insured Shri Kulwinder Singh (referred to as DLA in short) died of heart attack at Nabha on 28.4.2016.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant submitted her claim with the OPs and requested to pay the insurance claim amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-, but the OPs paid only the amount of Rs.45,411/- on 13.6.2016, whereas the complainant was entitled to get the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OPs.  The complainant requested so many times to the Ops for payment of the remaining claim amount of Rs.4,54,588/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.4,54,588/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, it is admitted that the DLA was having a saving bank account with the OP. It has been denied that the DLA took the policy in question or paid any premium to the OP. Further it has been denied that the DLA died on 16.4.2015 due to heart attack at Nabha. It is stated that the DLA purchased the policy from OP number 2 and 3 and OP number 1 has to do nothing in the case.

 

4.             In reply filed by Ops number 2 and 3, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has distorted and twisted picture and that the complaint is not maintainable and the jurisdiction of this Forum has also been disputed as the  policy in question was issued by HDFC Life Insurance Branch Ludhiana.    On merits, it is admitted that the DLA obtained the policy in question  on 28.10.2014 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.50,000/- as first premium. It is also admitted that the complainant is the nominee under the policy in question.  However, it has been denied that the documents were prepared at Amargarh branch of the OP number 1.  Further it has been denied that the DLA died on 28.4.2016.  It has been stated in the reply that the DLA took the policy for the premium paid to be in 10 years, but the complainant paid only one instalment and thereafter the second instalment was not deposited due to which the policy of the DLA came in the laps mode and at the time of the death of the DLA the policy was not in force.  It is further stated that the complainant lodged the claim regarding the death of the DLA and as such an amount of Rs.45,411/- being the fund value of the policy in question was deposited in the account of the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of letter, Ex.C-3 copy of passbook of the complainant, Ex.C-4 copy of passbook, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 30.10.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-7 copy of receipt dated 28.10.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2&3/2 copy of policy and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact of the parties that the DLA was insured with the OPs number 1 and 2 under policy 50100037370574 for Rs.5,00,000, which was taken by him on 28.10.2014 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.50,000/- at Amargarh (District Sangrur).  It is further an admitted fact that the DLA died on 28.4.2016 due to heart attack at Nabha as is evident from the copy of the death certificate, which is on record as Ex.C-6.

 

 

8.             First of all, the objection has been taken by the Ops number 2 and 3 that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the policy in question was issued by Ludhiana office.  On the other hand, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the proposal form was filled in the office of OP number 1 at Amargarh Distt. Sangrur and thereafter the policy in question was issued. We have perused the copy of the proposal form produced by Ops number 2 and 3 on record as Ex.OP2&3/2 at page number 25, which clearly shows that the proposal was made at Amargarh within the jurisdiction of District Sangrur, as such, we are of the considered opinion that that this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and the objection of the Ops number 2 and 3 regarding jurisdiction falls flat.

 

9.             Another objection of the Ops number 2 and 3 is that the DLA took the policy on 28.10.2014 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.50,000/-, but the DLA did not pay the second instalment of premium which was due on 28.10.2015, whereas the DLA died on 28.4.2016, meaning thereby at that time the policy in question was in lapsed mode.  Whereas, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the policy in condition was in running condition, as the OP never lapsed the policy, nor the OP ever intimated the complainant/DLA that the policy has been lapsed due to non payment of the premium of the second year as alleged by the Ops number 2 and 3. Further the OP number 2 and 3 has not produced any such documentary evidence to show that the policy in question was ever lapsed or intimated the complainant/DLA about the same.  As such, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for OPs number 2 and 3 that the policy in question was in lapsed condition.

 

10.           The Ops number 2 and 3 have taken another objection that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the present complaint is in regard with HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II Policy and the said policy is a unit linked policy. But, we are unable to go with this contention of the learned counsel for the OPs number 2 and 3, as it is a life insurance policy, wherein in case of death the insured amount is payable.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission pronounced in First Appeal No.1173 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Kaur versus Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, wherein in para number 5, it is mentioned that "perusal of disputed policy reveals that it was named as Life Long Unit Linked Fund and sum insured was Rs.14,00,000/- and regular annual premium amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. It also covered accidental benefits of Rs.14,00,000/-. Learned State Commission observed that complaint was not maintainable in the light of judgment of this Commission in III (2013) CPJ 203(NC) Ram Lal Aggarwalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, whereas, perusal of aforesaid judgment reveal that in the aforesaid case Unit Gain Super Diamond Policy was taken with Rs.2,00,000/- annual premium for 24 years. Policy in the aforesaid case was for investment purposes whereas, disputed policy is for covering life as well as accidental benefit and this policy cannot be equated with policy in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla (Supra). Learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable as policy was for  investment in speculative business. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this commission in 2012 Law Suit (CO) 606- Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Addanki Satyanarayana in which claim for unit linked policy with life insurance was held maintainable before Consumer Fora, though, in that policy maturity value was Rs.2,51,73,756/- and death benefit was only Rs.5,02,000/- whereas in the case in hand, sum assured was Rs.5,00,000/- in case of death of the policy holder. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint filed by the  complainant was maintainable before the learned State Commission and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and appeal is to be allowed.

 

11.           As such, we are of the considered opinion that since the policy in question was never declared lapsed mode by the OPs number 1 and 2 nor intimated the same to the complainant, nor the Ops number 1 and 2 have produced any documentary evidence on record, as such, as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs number 2 and 3 have wrongly repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant.  However, we feel that the claim should be settled by OPs number 2 and 3 after deducting the premium of the second year i.e. Rs.50,000/- which was not paid by the DLA.

 

12.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

13.           Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,04,588/- (Rs.4,54,588/- minus Rs.50,000/- as premium on account of second year) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 13.07.2016 till realisation in full.  The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.11,000/-  in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

14.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.   A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 7, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member