Haryana

Panchkula

CC/121/2016

RICHA AGARWAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.   

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	121 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	17.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	17.02.2016

 

Richa Aggarwal wife of Shri Manish Aggarwal, resident of House No. 285, Amravati Enclave, Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. HDFC Bank, SCO-409, Sector 8, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd, Sandoz House, 2^nd Floor Shiv Nagar Estate, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai (Maharasthra), through its authorized signatory.

                                                                           ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

             

For the Parties:     None for the complainant.      

Mr.Sumit Narang, Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the Ops with the averments that the complainant has a saving Bank account No. 50100044773990 with the Ops. During her visits to OP No.1, the official/executive of the OP No. 1 disclosed to the complainant that a policy had been launched by the Ops under the name of Young Star Super Premium Policy and the same was beneficial for the youngsters and further disclosed that the amount invested in the policy would be 100% safe and at the time of maturity the life assured would get the amount paid with other maturity benefits, beside that the same policy would also cover the death benefit, if the insured expired during the currency of the policy. The Ops further disclosed that the premium of the policy would be deducted from the account of the complainant. On those assurances and believing the version of the officials of the Ops, the complainant agreed to opt for the policy. Accordingly, the officials of the Ops obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank proformas and two polices No. 16887710 and 16887851 on a premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each per annum in the month of June, 2014 and instructions were issued by the complainant for the drawer of premium from the account of the complainant. In the year 2015, the premium was due in the month of June, 2015 and again the Ops deducted the premium from the account of the complainant, but the Ops instead of deducting the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the premium of both the policies, the Ops deducted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the account of the complainant. The complainant, on gaining knowledge about that fact, approached the Ops and asked the reason for deduction of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from her account illegally. The officials of the Ops disclosed to the complainant that the amount was wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant and assured that the amount would be transferred in to the account of the complainant. The complainant waited but the amount was never credited in the account of the complainant, Thereafter, he visited the Ops on numerous occasions and requested them to credit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, illegally deducted from her account. Thereafter, the Ops credited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of the complainant out of total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Full amount deducted from account was not credited by the Ops in her account. The complainant again approached the OP No. 1 and made a request, but the officials of the OP No. 1 always put the matter off on one or the other excuse and assured that the amount would be credited in her account. However, no positive efforts was put forth by the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant lodged many complaints with the OP No.1, but till the filing of complaint, no positive efforts to resolve the issue has been made by the Ops and the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was illegally retained by the Ops since June, 2015. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Ops appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the complainant has failed to make HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. a party. It is submitted that the complainant was insured with HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and the insurance premium was paid directly by the complainant to the insurance company through ECS. It is submitted that the complainant was having an account with OP No. 1 and complainant had given instructions to insurance company to collect premium through ECS from her account with OP No. 1. It was submitted that it is the insurance company which sends ECS request to OP NO. 1 and, accordingly, amount is withdrawn/transferred to insurance company and the insurance company returns the amount, if any, has been wrongly withdrawn from the account of complainant/customer. It is averred that in the present case also the disputed transaction was between insurance company and the complainant and the Ops have absolutely no role in it. It is averred that the complainant has no cause of action to pursue the present complaint as the disputed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-has already been deposited back in the account of complainant by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. on 20.06.2016. It is submitted that complainant a saving Bank account with the Ops. It is denied that during her visits to OP no. 1 the official/executive of OP No. 1 disclosed to complainant that a policy was launched by the Ops under the name of Young Star Super Premium policy and the same was beneficial for the youngsters and further disclosed that the amount deposited in the policy would be 100% safe and at the time of maturity the life assure would get the amount paid with other maturity benefits, besides this the same policy also cover the death benefits, if the life assured expired during the currency of policy. It is denied that the Ops disclosed that the premium of the policy would be deducted from the account of the complainant itself. It is denied that on those assurances and believing the version of the officials of the Ops, the complainant agreed to opt for the policy. It is submitted that as a matter of fact the complainant wanted to purchase insurance policy and she was told about various plans by officials of insurance company and after understanding various plans the complainant chose to purchase the present policies. It is submitted that the complainant who gave instructions for payment of insurance premium of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. through ECS. The issue regarding mode of payment of insurance premium was between the insurer and insured and HDFC Bank has no role to play in it. It is denied that officials of the Ops obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank proformas and issued two policies on a premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- each per annum. It is denied that in June 2015, Ops instead of deducting the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the premium of both the policies deducted an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the account of the complainant. It is denied that the Ops credited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of the complainant out of the total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. As a matter of fact the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been credited by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. in the account of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed his evidence.
4. The authorized representative for the complainant stopped appearing and we have heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record.
5. We are of the distilled view that the preliminary objection argued by the learned counsel for the ops with regard to the maintainability of the complaint for want of joining of the insurer deserves to be upheld. The following is the reasoning in support of the view:-

The Ops raised a precise objection in the written statement that “the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. is a necessary party in the present case as the complainant as insured with the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and the insurance premium was paid directly by the complainant to the insurance company through ECS ……. and complainant has given instructions to insurance company to collect premium through ECS from her account with Op No.1”.

6. That averments extracted in the above para has not been controverted by the complainant.
7. It would, thus, be evident that the contract of insurance was as between the complainant and the insurer. The Ops were not a party to it. The Ops are bankers with which the complainant holds an account. The insurance premium is drawn by the insurer from out of bank account of the complainant who has instructed the bankers to do that. The adjudication of the grievance made by the complainant that excess amount had been drawn by the insurer and that on protestation by him, it is only a part thereof which has found its way to the bank account can legitimately come about only when the insurer is impleaded as a party respondent in the complaint. However, inspite of the preliminary objection by the Ops in the written statement, the complainant did not implead the insurer as an OP.
8. We have, thus, no reservation in holding that the present complaint is not maintainable in the absence of the insurer as an Op. The complaint shall stand rejected accordingly due to non-joinder of the necessary party.
9. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

17.02.2016                         ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.      

                                 

 

 

                                           ANITA KAPOOR

                                                     MEMBER