Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/311/2017

KAMAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL SHARMA

21 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.               23/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      02-05-2017

 Date of Decision          06-11-2018

 

Kamal Singh,

S/O Sh.Raghunath Singh.

2.Hitender Rajput

S/O Kamal Singh,

Both R/O 5-Badyal Qazian,

R.S.Pura,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                                 V/S

1.HDFC Bank through its Branch Manager,

  R.S.Pura,Jammu.

2.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.

 Regd.Office Lodha Excelus,13^th Floor,Apollo Mills,

Compound,N.M.Joshi Margd,Mahalaxmi-Mumbai-400011.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

   

 CORAM:-

                           Mr.Khalil Choudhary (Distt,& Sessions Judge President

                           Ms.Vijay Angral                                                     Member

                           Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                              Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

 Mr.Anil Sharma , Advocate for complainant, present .

Mr.Himanshu Beotra,Advocate for OP1,present.

Mr.Raman Sharma,Advocate for OP2,present.

 

                                                            ORDER

                     

                 Grievance of complainant lies in short compass, in that allegation of complainant is that, he had opened a Saving Account before OP1 in the name of M/S Raja Traders and OP1 told about the loan schemes of the bank and also told that the OP bank can easily issue loan without completing much formalities as compare to other banks and therefore, on the assurance of OP1,complainant 1 requested for C.C.Limit/loan before OP1.Acccording to complainant at the time of submission of application for grant of loan, complainant No.1 was told by OP1 that loan can be issued only if the complainant No.1 will take insurance policy from OP bank which is a condition of the bank for granting loan and OP1 also assured complainant No.1 that in case after going through the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not interested in the policy, he can get the policy cancelled within one month from the date of issuance of policy and the premium will also be refunded back to him and complainant No.1 was also told to give the name of nominee and accordingly complainant No.1 given the name of complainant No.2 as nominee who is the son of complainant No.1.Allegation of complainant is that on the assurance of OP1,he took the policy bearing No.16432891 of HDFC SL Pro growth super-II and accordingly paid premium of Rs.1.00 lac to OP.It is submitted that policy has to be issued in the name of complainant No.1,but the same was issued in the name of complainant No.2 and complainant came to know when he received copy of the policy. It is also submitted that he was also told that he will receive the copy of policy within two days, but the copy of policy was received on,19-12-2013  and after going through the contents of policy and after coming to know that there is no growth in the unit linked upon and therefore, complainants decided to get the policy cancelled and accordingly informed OP for cancellation of policy through regd.cover on,30-12-2013. Complainant further submitted t5hat there is a clause in the policy that a person can get the policy cancelled within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy, if he is not interested to continue the policy. Complainant further submitted that after receiving the communication,OP2 assured that the decision may be taken  within 14 days and complainant will be informed accordingly and complainants were shocked to receive letter dated 04-02-2014 issued by OP1 whereby complainants came to know that their offer for cancellation of policy has been rejected by OP1.and this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service. In the final analysis, complainant prays for refund of premium amount to the tune of Rs.one lac and in addition, prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs.

                  On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and while denying the allegations of complainant, went on to submit that advancement of loan has nothing to do with the insurance policy nor the same was ever represented to complainant by OP.It is submitted that the policy in question was purchased in the name of complainant No.2 from OP2 through OP1 and accordingly premium amount of Rs.1.00 lac was paid  in the name of OP2  and at the time of issuance of policy all the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant by the representative of OP bank and after going through the contents of same, complainant had signed and applied for the issuance of policy. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of policy, the customer/subscriber has an option to return the policy, stating the reason thereof, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy.However,in the present case, communication for cancellation of the policy was received on,21-01-2014 i.e. after the lock in period of 30 days. It is submitted that since the request for cancellation of aforesaid policy was received by the answering OP after the lock in period of 30 days, as such the aforesaid request was  declined by answering OP  vide its letter dated 04-02-2014 as per terms and conditions of policy documents.

                At the same time,OP2 filed written version and denied the allegations in toto.

            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of policy, copies of communications exchanged between the parties and copy of statement of accounts.

              On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Ramnik Singh Backup Manager of HDFC Bank.

                  OP2 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Amit Khanna,Deputy Manager Legal.

             We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                 Briefly stated case of complainant is that, he had opened a Saving Account before OP1 in the name of M/S Raja Traders and OP1 told about the loan schemes of the bank and also told that the OP bank can easily issue loan without completing much formalities as compare to other banks and therefore, on the assurance of OP1,complainant 1 requested for C.C.Limit/loan before OP1.Acccording to complainant at the time of submission of application for grant of loan, complainant No.1 was told by OP1 that loan can be issued only if the complainant No.1 will take insurance policy from OP bank which is a condition of the bank for granting loan and OP1 also assured complainant No.1 that in case after going through the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not interested in the policy, he can get the policy cancelled within one month from the date of issuance of policy and the premium will also be refunded back to him and complainant No.1 was also told to give the name of nominee and accordingly complainant No.1 given the name of complainant No.2 as nominee who is the son of complainant No.1.Allegation of complainant is that on the assurance of OP1,he took the policy bearing No.16432891 of HDFC SL Pro growth super-II and accordingly paid premium of Rs.1.00 lac to OP.It is submitted that policy has to be issued in the name of complainant No.1,but the same was issued in the name of complainant No.2 and complainant came to know when he received copy of the policy. It is also submitted that he was also told that he will receive the copy of policy within two days, but the copy of policy was received on,19-12-2013  and after going through the contents of policy and after coming to know that there is no growth in the unit linked upon and therefore, complainants decided to get the policy cancelled and accordingly informed OP for cancellation of policy through regd.cover on,30-12-2013.

                 On the other hand, stand of OP1 is that the policy in question was purchased in the name of complainant No.2 from OP2 through OP1 and accordingly premium amount of Rs.1.00 lac was paid  in the name of OP2  and at the time of issuance of policy all the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant by the representative of OP bank and after going through the contents of same, complainant had signed and applied for the issuance of policy. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of policy, the customer/subscriber has an option to return the policy, stating the reason thereof, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy.However,in the present case, communication for cancellation of the policy was received on,21-01-2014 i.e. after the lock in period of 30 days. It is submitted that since the request for cancellation of aforesaid policy was received by the answering OP after the lock in period of 30 days, as such the aforesaid request was  declined by answering OP  vide its letter dated 04-02-2014 as per terms and conditions of policy documents.

                    Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings,therefore,we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

                 In support of averments, complainant placed on record copy of Insurance Policy copy of first premium receipt and copy of policy schedule. The complainant in his own affidavit has supported the allegations contained in the complaint.

                        It is settled preposition of law that Insurance Policy, falls within the realm of contract, which becomes final and binding, on being offer made by one party, accepted by other and followed by consideration in the shape of premium, which has been done in the case on hand,therefore,it did not lie in the mouth of OPs that after payment of premium, complainant was supposed to exercise option thereby giving his consent to get benefit flowing from the policy. The specific allegation of complainant is that he received the policy on,19-12-2013and after coming to know that there is no growth in the unit linked, complainants decided to get the policy cancelled . This plea find support from the copy of policy schedule annexed by complainant with the complaint. Be that as it may,OP cannot in law impress upon the complainant to exercise the option after utilizing the sum to the tune of Rs.one lac  and at the time of acceptance of premium, complainant was kept in the state of dormancy, about the benefits of the policy and by misrepresentation, complainant was made to make payment of premium to the tune of Rs.one lac. In our opinion, this act of omission and commission on the part of OPs,amounts to deficiency  in service, besides had colouring of misappropriation of public money, which is not expected from OPs,who are dealing with public money.OPs have no right to withheld the money of complainant for such long period, without settling down terms and conditions.      

                     After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumers as per the purport of Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OP is the service provider having failed in its statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumers. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                                         Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and opposite parties are directed to repay premium amount to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-The opposite parties shall comply the order jointly and severally within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. On deposit of the amount in this Forum, the same shall be paid to the complainant through payees account cheque.The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

   Order per President                                           Khalil Choudhary

                                                                          (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                 President

Announced                                                        District Consumer Forum

06-11-2018                                                               Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

 

Mrs.Vijay Angral                                             

 Member   

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member