Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/616

Ashish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Chhabra Adv.

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 616 of 12.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   20.01.2017 

 

Ashish Kumar Uppal, aged around 37 years, son of Sh. Mittar Pal, resident of House No.163, Street No.20, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.HDFC Bank Limited, Sandoz House, 2^nd Floor, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr.Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized person.

2.HDFC SL Ludhiana, Feroze Gandhi Market Branch, SCO 41, 3^rd & 5^th Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, above Tanishq showroom, Ludhiana-141001, through its Manager/Authorized person.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBMER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          None

For OP1                         :         Ex-parte.

For OP2                         :          Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant availed HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy namely HDFC Life Sanchay from Ops vide Policy No.17192811 having client ID 72704692 and date of issue 19.11.2014 for assured sum of Rs.2,69,990/-. The date of       maturity of the policy mentioned as 7.11.2029. Before availing the said insurance policy, negotiations took place, as per which, the complainant was assured that he will have to pay the premium of Rs.35,000/- per annum. Before the issuance of the policy, form was got signed from the complainant, wherein, it was clearly mentioned in the handwriting of the officials of Ops that premium payable is Rs.35,000/- on a year frequency basis for a term of five years. Believing that representations and assurances, complainant issued ECS directions for the deduction of the premium amount from his bank account directly. First installment was deducted from the bank account of the complainant on 7.11.2014, but to the utter surprise and dismay of the complainant, another installment of Rs.35,000/- was deducted on 7.5.2015. That fact came to the knowledge of the complainant after going through entries in the bank passbook. Complainant approached Ops for confronting that position by calling upon them to explain as to why just after six months, deduction of Rs.35,000/- again has been made. They claimed as if the installment to be charged twice in a year or bi annually. Thereafter, the complainant sent letter dated 2.6.2015 to Ops for cancellation of his policy, which was received by Ops, but declined. Thereafter, matter taken through complaint with Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India (IRDAI), who registered the same vide Token No.06-15-021064. However, no result entailed. Thereafter, complainant moved complaint dated 17.9.2015 with Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh. It is claimed that Ops committed gravest act of unfair trade practice and even they rendered deficient service, due to which, this complaint is to be filed after serving legal notice dated 18.9.2015. No reply to the legal notice was received. This complaint filed for issuing directions to Ops to refund the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest @24% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                OP1 is ex-parte in this case.

3.                In written statement filed by OP2, it is claimed interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops, due to which, complaint is not maintainable. It is also claimed that at the time of issuance of policy, 15 days free look in period was given to the complainant to think over the matter as to whether to continue with the policy or to get the same cancelled. No such cancellation request was  ever submitted by the complainant during that period of 15 days and as such, now complainant cannot claim that payment of premium frequency was on yearly basis, particularly when he himself opted for premium frequency on half yearly basis after acceptance of the terms and conditions of the policy. Request of the complainant was declined vide letter dated 18.06.2015 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, complaint is not maintainable. Issue of policy with date of maturity referred in the complaint not denied, but other allegations qua frequency of the premium payment denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and then closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Amit Khanna, Deputy Manager Legal and Compliance along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                 Perusal of Ex.C1, Ex.C3 as well as Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 discloses that the policy in question was purchased by the complainant. Perusal of Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 each reveals that date of commencement of the policy for assured sum of Rs.2,69,990/- was 7.11.2014 and premium frequency was half yearly. Even complainant admits having purchased this policy. This policy always issued after submission of proposal form and acceptance of the same. As first premium was paid by the complainant after going through the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, certainly now the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from claiming that frequency of payment of premium was annual and not half yearly.

8.                Letter Ex.R1 dated 20.11.2014 was sent to the complainant for disclosing the policy number and even for calling upon the complainant that in case, he does not agree with any of the terms and conditions of the policy, then he should return the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy by stating the reasons for not agreeing with the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant after receipt of the policy documents has not submitted any option in writing for disclosing that he does not agree with the terms and conditions of the policy and as such, in view of lapse of free look period of 15 days, now complainant is estopped from claiming that terms and conditions of the policy not acceptable to him, qua annual frequency of premium. In view of this request for declining of cancellation of policy is justified as evident from letter Ex.R6. However, through Ex.R6, it is admitted that premium of Rs.70,000/- has been received from the complainant through two installments by Ops. Even request Ex.R10 was submitted by the complainant with Grievance Cell of HDFC Life, Ludhiana for cancellation of the policy, but that request was not acceptable because terms and conditions of the policy cannot be changed after acceptance of the same by the Ops on submission of proposal form by the complainant.

9.                Policy was sent to the complainant through letter Ex.R1 of date 20.11.2014 and as such, complainant should have exercised the option for cancellation within 15 days, but that was not done and as such, the terms and conditions of the policy are binding on the complainant. As clear cut premium payment term   mentioned in the documents referred above and as such, withdrawal from the policy before lock-in period of 5 years is not permissible in view of Regulation 13 of the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India (Linked Insurance Product) (Regulation 2013), which came into force w.e.f.18.02.2013. So, complaint filed by the complainant for cancellation of the policy is pre-mature and as such, the same deserves to be disposed of accordingly.

10.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that the complainant will be entitled to discontinuous benefit as per Regulation 13 of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority of India (Linked Insurance Product) (Regulation 2013) after lock in period of 5 years only. No order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:20.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.