DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 297 of 2017
Date of Institution: 4.09.2017
Date of Decision : 10.06.2019
Sukhdeep Singh aged about 29 years, son of Gurmail Singh resident of VPO Man Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
.........Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Bank Ltd. Opp. Grain Market, Faridkot Road, Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot, through its Manager.
- Nupur Mittal, official, HDFC Bank Ltd. Opp. Grain Market, Faridkot Road, Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
- HDFC Life Insurance Company ltd, 11th Floor, Lodha Ecelus, Apollo Mill Compound N M Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400011.
.............OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for Complainant,
Sh Kuldeep Singh Jandoke, Ld Counsel for OP-3,
OP-1 and OP-2 Exparte.
cc no.- 297 of 2017
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.50,000/-with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having saving account with OP-1 and in November, 2013 complainant alongwith Khushpal Singh approached Ops for depositing Rs.50,000/- in Fixed Deposit and there Op-2 met him and apprised him to deposit his amount with OP-3 HDFC Life with assurance to double the amount within three years alongwith 18% interest per anum compoundable quarterly. It is submitted that complainant is not well educated person and is unable to understand English language. OP-2 got signatures of complainant on various printed papers without disclosing the facts of said documents. OP-2 promised to return his money within 3 years with interest. On assurance of OP-2, complainant deposited his amount with OP-3 and after three years in November, 2016 when complainant approached Ops and made request for returning his amount with interest, they asked him to deposit Rs.50,000/-every year continuously for ten years and his policy would mature in year 2022, but earlier this fact was not disclosed by Ops to him. Instead of refunding his amount after completion of three years, Ops insisted for depositing the
cc no.- 297 of 2017
due instalments. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do anything needful and flatly refused to pay the amount deposited by him with them. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 11.09.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.
4 On receipt of the notice, the OP-3 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant purchased the policy in question with his own free consent and submitted his duly signed proposal form after fully understanding the terms and conditions of policy, which are set by IRDA. As per IRDA, every policy holder is given a free look period of 15 days to weight the policy terms and conditions and the benefits offered under the policy. Complainant was at liberty to get the policy cancelled and get his amount refunded but he did not avail the free look period of 15 days. All the terms and conditions are regarding policy in question were clearly read over and explained to him and after thoroughly understanding its,
cc no.- 297 of 2017
contents, complainant filled the proposal form and policy was issued to him on the basis of proposal for submitted by him. Complainant was fully aware of the fact that term of his insurance policy was for ten years and before ten years, he cannot seek refund for amount deposited by him. He has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false and incorrect and no cause of action arises against them and even complainant is not the consumer of answering Ops. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant has filed the present complaint in violation of terms and conditions of the policy in question. He has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from them. Complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint filed by him is a misuse of process of law. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was issued to OP-1 through RC AD, but it did not receive back undelivered. Statutory period expired, but despite repeated calls, nobody appeared in the Forum either in person or through counsel on date fixed. Therefore, vide order dated 26.06.2018, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte. Notice issued to OP-2 received back with report given by Postal Authorities as ‘Refused’. Therefore, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.05.2018.
cc no.- 297 of 2017
6 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed their evidence.
7 Despite availing several opportunities, OP-3 did not tender any evidence. Therefore, vide order dated 27.05.2019, evidence of OP-3 was closed by order of this Forum
8 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OP-3 and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record respective parties.
9 From the careful perusal of evidence placed on record and from the pleadings of the parties, it is observed that case of complainant that he holds an account with OP-1, who has ties with Insurance Company/ OP-3 and OP-2 is their agent. As per complainant, he purchased policy in question and deposited Rs.50,000/- as premium with OP-3. As per policy he had to pay one time premium of Rs.50,000/- and then after three years, he would be entitled to get double of amount deposited alongwith 18 % per anum compoundable interest. OP-2 promised to return his money within 3 years with interest, but after completion of three years in November, 2016 when complainant approached Ops and made request for returning his amount with interest, they asked him to deposit Rs.50,000/-every year continuously for ten years and disclosed that his policy would mature in year 2022, but earlier
cc no.- 297 of 2017
fact was not disclosed by Ops to him. Instead of refunding his amount after completion of three years, they forced him to pay the due instalments. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not refund his money and did not do anything needful. All this amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply to controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP No. 3 stressed mainly on the point that refund sought by complainant is not payable as complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Counsel for OP-3 brought before the Forum that complainant has himself accepted the policy after fully understanding all the terms and conditions which are set by IRDA. As per IRDA, every policy holder is given a free look period of 15 days to weigh the policy terms and conditions and the benefits offered under the policy. Complainant was at liberty to get the policy cancelled and get his amount refunded but he did not avail the said free look period of 15 days for cancellation of his policy or for refund of his amount. Ops fully described all the terms and conditions of policy to complainant and after carefully going through the same, complainant purchased the said policy and now, he cannot turn back and he has to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy in question. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. As per OP-3, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that complainant has himself voluntarily opted for the policy in question
cc no.- 297 of 2017
which is to mature after 10 years and thus, as per terms and conditions of policy in question, he cannot claim the insurance amount before period of maturity. No commitment was made by them regarding payment of insurance amount before the maturity time. Complainant has no cause of action to file complaint and claim sought by complainant from them is not payable by them before the date of maturity as per terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
10 From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record and pleading made by parties in above discussion, it is observed that there is no dispute regarding insurance of complainant with OPs. It is observed that complainant has voluntarily with his own free will purchased the said policy from OPs after considering all the pros and cons in respect of terms and conditions of policy. OP-3 brought before the Forum that complainant was fully aware that deposited amount would not be available to him before the date of maturity, but he has himself violated the terms and conditions and insisted for refund of amount deposited by way of premium. Complainant himself opted for policy which is to continue for ten years and now he has no right to seek any refund before the date of maturity.
11 From the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. And therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are
cc no.- 297 of 2017
no orders as to costs. Copy of order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 10.06.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
