BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.337 of 2014

Date of Instt. 24.09.2014

Date of Decision :09.06.2015

Swaran Singh aged about 62 years son of Late Sh.Anokh Singh R/o H.No.109A, Beant Nagar, P.O PAP Lines, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant Versus

1. HDFC Bank Ltd, Sandog House, Second Floor, Shiv Nagar Estate, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worlo Mumbai, Maharastra-456606 through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

2. The Manager, HDFC Bank, PAP Campus Branch, Jalandhar.

3. Surjit C/o HDFC Life Assurance, PAP Campus Branch, Jalandhar now at HDFC Bank, Vijay Nagar Branch, Jalandhar.

4. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd, 12-13th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Appollo Mills Compound, NM Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 through its Authorized Representative/Managing Director/Chairman.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Devinder Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Nipun Bajaj Adv., counsel for OPs No.3 & 4.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a senior citizen and retired person and getting pension for his livelihood. The complainant is a account holder of HDFC Bank, PAP Campus Branch, Jalandhar and for the banking transaction, he normally visits the bank and in that normal course of business the complainant visited the said branch of the said bank in the month of January,2014. During his visit in the month of January 2014, opposite parties allured and induced the complainant to purchase one life insurance policy by making some false rosy picture and opposite parties through opposite party No.3 induced the complainant to purchase one policy bearing No.16553873 with ID No.65906904. At the time for the purpose of getting the policy, it was falsely claimed by the opposite parties that amount of policy is to be deposited only once and further assured that the high returns of the amount invested one time will be incurred after sometime and some other benefits were also assured by the opposite parties. On the assurance and allurement of the opposite parties, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of the said policy. It was wrongly and intentionally did not disclose by the opposite parties that amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be deposited every year as per the policy nature. After the payment of said amount, the complainant received the policy papers on 23.1.2014 and that time it came to the knowledge of the complainant that false inducement has been made by the opposite parties as the amount of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid every year as per rules of the policy. The complainant was shocked to notice that the opposite parties have falsely and dishonestly induced the complainant and grabbed his hard earned money by framing rosy picture. The complainant who is a pensioner is not so much financially sound that he could afford to make the payment of Rs.50,000/- every year for the said policy. It is further mentioned that when the complainant has received the policy papers and on those policy papers the address of the opposite parties was mentioned, the complainant immediately returned the original policy documents to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.4 in connivance with the all the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant and for which opposite parties are also liable for the same. Moreover, the opposite party No.4 is a sister concern of opposite party No.1 and providing the services of insurance in the branch of opposite party No.1, in which the complainant is account holder. After going through terms and conditions of the said policy and discussing it with some friends and well wisher the complainant decided not to continue with the policy and exercised the option of cancellation within the free look period of the policy as per the IRDA rules. For the purpose of the cancellation of the policy the complainant made the request in writing for the cancellation of the policy and all the original documents pertaining to the policy were attached alongwith the letter of cancellation which has been duly received by the opposite parties vide registered post, posted and sent by the complainant. After exercising of the option of the cancellation within free look period, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as per IRDA rules but the opposite parties failed to give any reply to the complainant, thereafter the complainant sent letter and representations to all the authorities as advised by the opposite parties but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. By not refunding the amount of the complainant within free look period as per request of the complainant, the opposite parties have violated the rules of IRDA and continuation of the policy after cancellation request is illegal and unlawful. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him alongwith interest.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2, inter-alia, pleaded that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as no cause of action arose against the answering opposite parties. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are carrying on the business of banking and not of insurance. The policy in question was not issued by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 as such the answering opposite parties are not liable to the complainant in respect of alleged policy. It is admitted by complainant that he intended insurance policy and the payment of premium has been made at his desire. As such there is neither any negligence, deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The complainant as per IRDA rules should have opted out of the policy as per its terms and conditions and asked for cancellation of the policy to insurance company which has issued it. It is wrong that the complainant made request in writing for the cancellation of policy to opposite parties No.1 &2 and sent all his original documents pertaining to the policy to opposite parties. It is wrong that complainant asked for the refund of his amount and all went in vain. It is wrong that opposite parties No.1 and 2 were to refund any money and reply to the complainant as policy was not issued by it. Nor it has received any payment from complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

2. In its separate written reply, opposite party No.3 insurance company pleaded that the complainant Swaran Singh "Life Assured" (hereinafter referred to as LA) had submitted to the answering opposite party No.3, an online proposal application dated 6.1.2014 for the purchase of "HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus Policy", the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No.16553873 dated 17.1.2014 and the same commenced on 6.1.2014. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. It is further mentioned that copy of policy which is being exhibited alongwith the present complaint is a replica of the original policy, which is being kept in the records of the company and same is being unusually generated after the dispatch of the original policy i.e in the present case on 21.1.2014. Before acceptance of the proposal by the opposite parties, adequate information with regard to the product, nature and its significance was given to the complainant. In addition to the above the sales literatures and the necessary guidance was also provided by the concerned financial consultant/agent and were duly explained to the complainant. He signed the proposal form after fully ensuring himself about the terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, the complainant also singed the most important document dated 6.1.2014 whereby it has been clearly mentioned that the term of policy is 10 years and annual premium to the tune of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid by the policy holder and sum assured is Rs.2,08,207/-. The said document was signed after understanding and appreciating the terms and conditions of the insurance plan and the policy. Moreover, the complainant also signed the mandate form for direct debit for debiting the premium amount from his bank account maintained in HDFC bank, College Road, Jalandhar wherein it is clearly mentioned that premium to the tune of Rs.50,000/- qua the insurance policy is to be deducted from his bank account. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands as the policy documents delivered to the LA provided him a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policy to the opposite parties by stating the reason thereof. The act and conduct of the complainant in not returning/ surrendering the policy within the given time signified his acceptance of the term and conditions mentioned in the said policy documents. Since, the said option has not been exercised by the LA within the stipulated period of 15 days therefore, now he can not be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy and to level false allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant never submitted a free look in request with the answering opposite party. It was only in March 2014 that the complainant requested for free look in cancellation for the first time and the same was adequately replied by the answering opposite party No.3 vide letter dated 26.3.2014. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. No separate written reply was filed on behalf of opposite party No.4. Counsel for opposite parties No.3 and 4 made a statement on 31.3.2015 that he does not want to file any fresh written reply on behalf of opposite party No.4 and earlier reply dated 1.12.2014 filed on behalf of opposite party No.3 may be read as reply on behalf of opposite party No.4.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1&2/A and evidence of opposite parties No.1 and 2 closed by order. Further learned counsel for opposite parties No.3 and 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant has applied for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days but the opposite party insurance company has wrongly refused to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount. He further contended that policy documents were received on 23.1.2014 and letter regarding cancellation of policy Ex.C4 was sent to HDFC Bank on 27.1.2014. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.3 and 4 that the complainant sent the alleged request for cancellation of the policy to HDFC Bank and not to the opposite parties No.3 or 4. He further contended that policy was issued by the insurance company and not by HDFC Bank. He further contended that since the cancellation request was not sent to the insurance company within free look period and as such the complainant can not ask for cancellation of the policy at this stage. Counsel for the complainant contended that on the letter head dated 18.1.2014 Ex.OP3 vide which the policy document was sent to the complainant, it is specifically mentioned that HDFC Bank is agent of the insurance company. He further contended that if the cancellation request has been sent to the agent of the insurance company, the principal i.e insurance company can not refuse to act upon the same. He further contended that agent has implied authority on behalf of principal. He further contended that opposite party No.3 is selling insurance policy to the customers of the HDFC Bank and the bank and insurance company are sister concerns and in the circumstances of the case refusal of the insurance company to cancel the policy and refund the amount is not justified. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for bot the parties. Ex.OP3 is letter vide which the policy was sent to the complainant which has been produced by opposite party No.3 insurance company itself. Below this letter under the agent details name of HDFC Bank is mentioned. So admittedly as per this letter, HDFC Bank was an agent of the insurance company. The complainant has sent the request for cancellation of the policy to the above said agent of the insurance company on 27.1.2014 vide letter Ex.C4 within free look period of 15 days. Postal receipt regarding dispatch of the request is attached on the request Ex.C4. In our opinion, the request for cancellation of the policy sent by the complainant to the agent of the insurance company is substantial compliance of the provision regarding option for cancellation of the policy during the free look in period. The agent should have informed the principal regarding the request of the complainant. So in the above circumstance, refusal of the insurance company to cancel the policy of the complainant on the ground that option regarding cancellation of the policy was not exercised by the complainant within free look period as the request was sent to the HDFC Bank and not to the insurance company is not justified.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.3 and 4 are directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till the date of payment. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.06.2015 Member President