Delhi

East Delhi

CC/812/2013

ANUPAMA BHATORIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi

          CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.      812 /2013

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               12/09/2013

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               16/07/2018                                

                                                                                                   Date of order                        18/07/2018                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mrs Anupama Bhatoria, adult   

                     &

Mrs Pooja Bathoria

R/o- 47, 1^st Floor, Vigyan Vihar

Delhi-110092………………………………..…………………………...Complainants

                                                                   

                                                                           Vs

1- The Manager

     HDFC Bank Ltd.

     Ashoka Niketan, Delhi 110092

 

2-The HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

    11^th Floor, Lodha Excellus

    Apollo mill compound, N M Joshi Road

    Mahalaxmi , Mumbai 400011….……………..………………..Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate            Mr Sanjeev Nirwani

Opponent’s Advocate                 Mr G L N Murti

 

Quorum                     Sh Sukhdev  Singh    President

                                    Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member   

                                                                                               

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member   

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

 

The complainant had saving bank account with OP1 since long. The agent of OP2 offered single premium policy with higher returns and insurance cover, so complainant liquidated her two Fix Deposits premature of Rs 2.5 lacs as maturity amount was Rs 2.91,030/-one in the name of Pooja Bhatoria (Ex CW1/1) and Rs 3.25 lacs in the name of Sanjay Kumar Bhatoria (Ex CW1/2) to invest in OP2 scheme (Ex CW1/1, &2), so investment of total sum of Rs 6 lacs were invested under three parts as Rs 2.50,000/-, Rs 1.50,000/- and Rs 2,00,000/-.

Complainant was shocked to see that OP2 had issued insurance policies with annual premium of 6 lacs in all the policies for five years, so contacted OP2 who told that policies were of single premium, but complainant was not convinced and wanted policies to be cancelled and her amount be reinvested in FD. This proposal was not accepted by OP. 

Complainant felt harassed by false promises and adopting unfair trade practice by OP caused lot of mental agony, so filed this complaint for refund of Rs 6 lacs with 18% interest till realization with compensation of Rs one lacs for mental agony.

After receiving the notices, OP1/HDFC Bank filed written statement and denided all the allegations against them. It was stated that there were two joint accounts of complainants as under -

• Joint Saving Account no.-01931000049405 in the name Mrs Pooja Bhatoria as per bank statement of Jan. 2014 and   
• Joint Saving Account no. 01931000065861 in the name of Sanjay Kumar Bhutoria as per the bank statement of Jan. 2014.

OP1 stated that their working was as per RBI guidelines and advice best of their services and cares for their customer. The statement was issued to the complainants reflects the heavy transactions by both the customers. Hence, there was no deficiency in their work and never adopt any unfair trade practice.  

OP2 submitted written statement and denied allegations of mis-selling policies with fraud and indulged in unfair trade practice by OP2. It was clearly evident from the policy proposal forms that complainants being educated persons, had read over all the terms and conditions prior to inception dates. Many queries were properly and clearly explained by their agent and officials and after being satisfied, had paid the premium as per annexed detail policy documents (Ex OPE1/A) having pages from 12 to 25, (Ex OPE1/B) having pages from 26 to 41 and policy documents from page 42 to 58  (Ex OPE1/C).

 

OP2 stated that three policies were issued as –

1. Policy no. 15399607 HDFC SL Crest Policy schedule from 31/08/2012 for paying term of five years with annual premium of Rs 2 Lacs for Mrs Anupama Bhutoria and policy was delivered through Blue Dart courier on 05/09/2012 via Airway bill no. 46137694820.
2. Policy no. 15434540 HDFC SL Crest Policy schedule from 26/09/2012 for paying term of five years with annual premium of Rs 1.5 Lacs for Mrs Anupama Bhutoria and policy was delivered through Blue Dart courier on 01/10/2012 via Airway bill no. 46173009186. Policy no. HDFC SL Crest Policy schedule from 31/08/2012 for paying term of five years with annual premium of Rs 2 Lacs for Mrs Anupama Bhutoria and policy was delivered through Blue Dart courier on 05/09/2012 via Airway bill no. 46137694820
3. Policy no. 15435042 HDFC SL Crest Policy schedule from 14/09/2012 for paying term of five years with annual premium of Rs 2.5 Lacs for Mrs Pooja Bhutoria and policy was delivered through Blue Dart courier on 19/09/2012 via Airway bill no. 46138572594.

It was submitted that complainant had filled policy proposal form by them and after a gap of many days reading clearing their doubts, they had put their signatures on policy documents and on declaration. It was stated that every policy has “Cancellation of policy in Free Look” and here in this case, complainants were given 30 days to cancel the policy after receiving the policy with all the documents if terms of the policy were not acceptable, but complainant did not opt Free Look Period option and wanted to get refund of invested amount. There was no deficiency in services of OP2 or anywhere adopted unfair trade practice. Hence it was prayed that this complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant submitted his rejoinder and denied all the replies in OP1 written statement. He had also submitted his evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that complainant had believed on all the facts and evidences submitted were on record and were true and correct. Complainant also submitted rejoinder to written statement of OP2 and denied all the replies. It was stated that the agent of OP2 who was sitting in the office of OP1 had signed all the policy documents and had mislead the complainant for monetary benefit.

Complainant filed his evidences through his own affidavit in reference to his complaint and reaffirmed on oath that OP2 had mislead complainant for their own benefit and gave false promises as a single premium policy and would get handsome return, but after seeing policy details, it was mentioned that the policy tenure was of ten years and had to pay the premium for five years which was contrary to the assurances given by the agent of OP2 at OP1 office.  

Complainant prayed for refund of entire amount with interest.

OP1 also filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr Ripon Bhattacharya, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank office at Vivek Vihar, Delhi 92 and stated on oath that the bank as OP1 was established as per the guidelines of RBI and works as per the standard working protocol of banks and RBI. It was also submitted that complainant had two joint saving accounts with OP1 whose records were on case file. It was the complainants who requested for pre-term liquidation of their FDs and wanted money for investment in the single premium policies, so  FDs were cancelled and amount was transferred in the saving account with OP1 bank. Both the joint accounts FDs were liquidated prematurely, but the complainant had their regular saving account. OP1 had issued timely bank statement account sheet also. So, there was neither deficiency in services nor unfair trade practice was adopted at any time of issue. All related facts were stated in the written statement and were true and correct.

Complainant filed written arguments taken on record.

OP2 have also submitted written arguments along with two citations of State Commission Delhi  as -

1-FA 222/2014 in Surendra Kumar vs SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Decided on 04/05/2014 and

2-FA 902/2014 in Managing Director, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chand Kishore Nanda, decided on 27/01/2017 where it was laid down that if complainant has not opted Free Look Period option within the given period, no relief can be availed from opposite party.  

OP have also took reference from OIC vs Munimahesh Patel, (2006) 7SCC 655 where it was laid down law that availing free look period was open to complainant and not opting for cancellation of policy, complainant/appellant cannot demand refund of premium amount as deficiency in services.

 

 

“Grasim Industries Ltd and others vs M/s Agarwal Steel, CA 5994/2004(SC) where it was laid down that “when a signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

In revision petition 4463/2014(NC) ‘Gurender Kaur vs HDFC Standard life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, it was laid down that if petitioner has failed to exercise the option for cancellation of his policy within free look period of 15 days, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Co. in declining to accede to the prayer for foreclosure of the policy. 

Arguments were heard from complainant and OP through their counsel in detail. Order was reserved. 

After hearing arguments, scrutinizing all the facts and evidences submitted before us, it is clear that complainant have not availed option of Free Look Period of 30 days in given all three policies. It was also seen that all the three policies were issued at a different dated and so were delivered. The complainant has unable to prove allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice of OP1 and OP2. Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost. 

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per rules of the Consumer Protection Act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari – Member                                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member                                            

                                      

                                         

                                                     Mr Sukhdev Singh - President