- Kalpana Chaterjee,
Flat No.4C Dakshinee
21, Jatin Bagchi Road, Kolkata-29. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- HDFC Bank,
132, M.N. Saha Sarani, Golpark,
Kolkata-29.
- HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
26A Hindustan Park,
Gariahat Shopping Mall, 1st Floor,
Kolkata-29. __________Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 29-12-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant took a policy from o.p. no.2 by paying a cheque of Rs.1 lakh on 6.7.09 being the policy no.13006878. After receiving of the policy on 8.7.09 complainant came to know that annual premium @ Rs.1 lakh to be paid for next 10 years. Complainant further stated that the said terms and conditions have not been intimated to him by Mr. Somdev Ghosh. He assured the complainant that this policy is a saving assurance plan. Thereafter complainant surrendered the policy on 11.7.09 within the lookout period of 15 days as per policy document but the bank did not refund any amount. Reminders were sent on 25.7.09 and 8.8.09. Sometimes in Dec 2009 o.p. no.1 told the complainant that premium would be reduced to Rs.5000/- per year from Rs.1 lakh and if the complainant would pay the reduced premium for two years then after three years it can be encashed with 12% to 14% interest per annum. But after three years bank did not refund any amount. Upon correspondences from July 2012 o.ps. refunded the principal amount of Rs.1 lakh and two premiums of Rs.5000/- each in Dec 2012. Complainant had also stated in her petition that o.p. no.1 has kept the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- for 3 years 6 months. Complainant had asked them to pay her Rs.30,000/- as interest for retaining the money for 3½ years, but in vain. Hence complainant has filed the instant case with prayer from o.p. no.2 to pay her Rs.30,000/- as interest.
Both the o.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed their w/v. In their w/v o.p. no.1 has denied all the material allegations interalia stated that in the instant case o.p. no.1 would not be a party. O.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 are two separate legal entities. Complainant has prayed for interest from o.p. no.2 only. O.p. no.1 has not received any consideration amount from complainant for alleged insurance service. No payment towards charges for rendering any insurance service has been paid by complainant. No receipt they have issued towards receipt of insurance premium to the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the present complaint is liable to be rejected against of o.p. no.1.
In their w/v o.p. no.2 also denied all the materials allegations interalia stated that complainant was required to pay yearly premium @ Rs.1 lakh for a period of ten years. She duly filled up and signed the application form. After receipt of written proposal form along with initial premium, o.p. no.2 issued a policy being no.13006878 to the complainant. Accordingly, the original policy document was despatched by the company to the complainant’s address. Complainant had signed the illustrated document which clearly states the working benefit, the term and type of policy. Complainant also signed KYC form giving her personal details. As per IRDA guideline the company along with the original policy document provided an option to return the same within a period of 15 days i.e. freelook period. On 11.10.10 o.p. no.2 received a letter dt.17.9.10 from the complainant with request to reduce the premium. The said request was accepted by o.p. no.2 by their letter dt.27.10.10. As per request of the complainant the premium was reduced to @ Rs.5000/- per year. Accordingly, she paid the premium @ Rs.5000/- per yearfor two years. Thereafter suddenly on 28.8.12 o.p. no.2 received a letter dt.27.7.12 issued by complainant alleging the missale of the policy and asked for refund of the entire premium along with interest. O.p. no.2 sent their reply dt.7.9.12 and informed the complainant that they have conducted an internal assessment and the allegation of missale was found incorrect. Complainant was further informed that due to non payment of premium for July 2012 policy has reached to fadeup status. Complainant has made a request for cancellation of the policy on 30.11.12. The request for cancellation has been accepted as a special case and called upon the complainant to submit the original policy document to process the cancellation. As per request of the complainant o.p. no.2 cancelled the policy and they refunded Rs.1,10,077/- by NEFT dt.12.12.12. Complainant duly acknowledged the receipt of the refund vide her letter dt.28.1.13 and further claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- as interest towards said amount. Accordingly, o.p. no.2 replied on 23.2.13 informing her that she did not cancel the policy within the freelook period. And as such, she was not entitled to get refund of any further amount. Question of paying interest does not arise at all. So the case is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant had taken a policy being no.13006878. There is no relation between the complainant and o.p. no.1 for the policy in question. Moreover, complainant has not prayed any amount from o.p. no.1. As there is no relation between complainant and o.p. no.1 we do not find any relation as consumer and service provider between o.p. no.1 and the complainant for the policy in question.
O.p. no.2 has admitted that complainant had taken a policy from o.p. no.2 being policy no. 13006878. From the documents we have observed that the policy was received by complainant on 8.7.09 and complainant has surrendered the policy on 11.7.09. Complainant has approached o.p. no.1 to surrendered the policy, not o.p. no.2 who has issued the policy. Before issuance of the policy complainant had filled up and signed the form as required by o.p. no.2. All correspondences for surrendering the policy in question were made to o.p. no.1. On 11.10.10 o.p. no.2 received a letter dt.17.9.10 from where it reveals that complainant has prayed for reduction of the premium amount. Accordingly, o.p. no.2 had accepted the prayer and reduced the premium amount from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.5000/- per year. Complainant had paid the premium @ Rs.5000/- per year for consecutive 2 yers. When complainant had alleged o.p. no.2 for missale of the policy, o.p. no.2 had conducted an internal assessment and informed the complainant that her allegation was found incorrect. On 30.11.12 complainant made a request for cancellation of the policy. As per IRDA guideline after the freelook period o.p. no.2 can neither cancel the policy nor refund the premium amount as per request of the complainant. However, they have taken the instant case as an exception and they have processed a refund of the premium without any deduction as mentioned by IRDA. It is also mentioned in the letter dt.2.2.13 issued by o.p. no.2 that if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of o.p. no.2 complainant may contact their grievance officer within eight weeks of receipt of the resolution communication at their help line which were mentioned in the aforesaid letter. It is admitted fact that complainant opted to surrender her policy within freelook period but that prayer was not conveyed to o.p. no.2. Moreover, when complainant has approached with a prayer for reduction of the premium amount by her letter dt.17.9.10, the prayer for cancellation of the policy in question does not arise. O.p. no.2 has refunded the premium amount along with the late fees paid by complainant as a special case which are beyond the IRDA guideline. So we find no deficiency in service on the part o.p. no.2 also and as such, complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Moreover, o.ps. rendered more services to the complainant which is supposed to be rendered by the o.ps. to the complainant.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against the o.ps. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
