DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.107/2014
Sh.Lalit Mohan Asthana
S/o Late Sh. K.M. Asthana,
R/o Sector A, Pkt. C,
Flat No. 496, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd
C-4, IRCON Building,
District Centre Saket,
New Delhi-110017
IInd Address
Reg. Office
Ramon House,
HT Parekh Marg,
169,Backbay Reclamation,
Mumbai 400020
Corporate Office
Trade Star, 2nd Floor,
A-Wing, Junction of Kondivita and M.V Road,
Andheri-Kurla Road Andheri( East)
Mumbai 400059 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.03.14 Date of Order : 21.03.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had taken a policy bearing No.13443526 (HDFC Pension Supreme Policy ) from the OP. The term of policy was ten years and it was issued on 10.02.2010, the installment premium of the policy was Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by him. It is stated as follows:-
“3. That the said policy was offered by Mr. Rohit who was working in HDFC Bank, Vasant Kunj Branch, New Delhi at that time and the same was given by him to the complainant by misrepresenting the facts in respect of the policy stating that the complainant will get a good return on the investment. Believing the facts as represented by Mr. Rohit the complainant took the policy but later on realized that the actual position in respect of policy is something else and the Complainant was shocked to see the letter in respect of the policy in which the amount invested by the Complainant was reduced heavily.”
It is further stated that he sent an e- mail to the grievance cell and the complaint No. 136985 was recorded against the policy but no reply was received from the grievance cell. He sent an e-mail to the OP’s Official Sh. Manoj Raman, Sr. Manager, Customer Service but no reply is received till date. It is stated as under:
“5. That the complainant was absolutely taken aback by this type of behavior/attitude as the same was not expected from an organization such as HDFC Standard life as they have been in the business and as a result have built up a considerable goodwill and reputation as such people have reposed trust and faith in them.
6. That due to careless and negligent attitude of the respondent company of not responding to the grievance of the customer the same has caused great deal of harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Further the actions of the respondent company are totally unethical in the corporate world and the same amount to deficiency in service which is covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
7. That the respondent duty bound to refund the above said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest from due date till realization under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.”
It is submitted that he had sent a legal notice dated 06.02.2014 to the OP for refunding the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was received by the OP on 12.02.14. Despite receiving the legal notice OP failed to reply the legal notice. Therefore, pleading negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayer:-
“to pass an order/decree against the respondents for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which includes Rs. 1,00,000/- as the premium amount and Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages on account of deficiency in service and mental pain and agony caused to the complainant due to careless attitude of the respondent. That the respondent further be directed to pay interest at 24% p.a. to the complainant.”
OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.12.14 passed by our predecessors.
The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit.
We have heard the argument of the complainant and also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has filed on record the copy of First Premium Receipt issued by the OP as Ex. CW1/A.
According to the Complainant himself, the copy of the policy in question was issued to him and the copies of the policy documents are Ex. CW-1/A. These documents also contain the policy details including a copy of the letter dated 17.02.10 written on behalf of the OP to the complainant. The relevant portion of the said letter is very material and the same is reproduced as hereunder:
“Cancellation in the Free-Look Period:
In case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the Policy and the details in the proposal form, you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reasons thereof, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Policy. On receipt of your letter along with original Policy documents, we shall arrange to refund the value of units allocated to you on the date of receipt of request plus the unallocated part of the premium plus charges levied by cancellation of units, subject to deduction of the stamp duty. A policy once returned shall not be revived, reinstated or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a new Policy.”
Therefore, the complainant had the option of returning the policy to the OP within the ‘Free-look Period’. However, he did not do so. Instead of doing so, he has levelled allegations against one Mr. Rohit stated to be working with the HDFC Bank, Vasant Kunj Branch, New Delhi. The name of the OP is HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd which obviously is a separate entity from HDFC Bank. Therefore, the said Mr. Rohit had nothing to do with the issuance of the policy in question by the OP to the complainant. Even if he had made any such misrepresentation to the complainant and the complainant was cheated by him then the appropriate remedy was to have sued him for appropriate compensation /damages and not to put the blame on the OP Co. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 21.03.17.
