Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/154/2014

mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh H.S Tiwana

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.154 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  17.12.2014      

                                                           Date of decision   :  30.11.2015

Mohan Singh son of Puran Singh R/o village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, P.O. Amrala, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Branch Office at Khamano, Tehsil Khamano District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Mananger.
2.  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Registered Office at Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 022, through its Chairman/M.D.

…..Opposite parties    

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. H.S.Tiwana, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                 Sh. A.K.Sharma, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.                              

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Mohan Singh son of Puran Singh R/o village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, P.O. Amrala, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased a policy No.16081215 in his name from OP No.1 through its official/agent, which was commenced on 27.05.2013. At the time of purchase of the policy it was told to the complainant that he has to pay one installment of Rs.50,000/- only and thereafter the company will return the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within four years to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 27.05.2013. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the said policy was for the period of 15 years and he will have to pay Rs.50,000/- per annum as installment premium, which was not as per the terms and conditions of the policy as assured by the agent of the OPs. The complainant approached the branch office at Khamano and made a complaint about the said matter but he was told by the officials of the OPs that as per the policy the complainant will have to pay Rs.50,000/- per annum for the period of 15 years. Thereafter, on 03.09.2014 the complainant sent registered/A.D. notice through his counsel to the OPs to refund the amount paid but the OPs sent reply to the said notice by mentioning false facts. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.50,000/- along with F.D.R. interest and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him.

3.                The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act for the reason that this is a policy of insurance which is Unit Linked Policy and  the same is liable to be dismissed; that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that as per the insurance plan purchased by the complainant he was liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as insurance premium for a period of 15 years but he failed to pay subsequent premium as per the proposal form submitted by the complainant.  As such, on account of non payment of the premium regularly, the policy became in lapsed condition and nothing is payable to the complainant as per policy terms and conditions.  Even as per IRDA regulations every insured person is given a liberty to get the policy cancelled within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy contract in case he is not satisfied with the said terms and conditions but the complainant never approached the OPs within the said statutory period and kept mum for a period of more than year. It is further stated that the complainant is neither entitled to get refund of the insurance premium nor any alleged interest as the amount invested by him was towards the insurance policy and not an FDR. A proper service has been provided by the OPs to the complainant so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copy of policy documents                   Ex. C-2(colly), true copy of legal notice Ex. C-3, true copy of postal receipts Ex. C-4 and true copy of application for refund dated 08.07.2014 Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Khanna, Associate Manager Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. most important document Ex. OP-2, declaration Ex. OP-3, consultant confidential report Ex. OP-4, application form Ex. OP-5, statement of premium Ex. OP-6, personal details Ex. OP-7, policy conditions Ex. OP-8, copy of affidavit Ex. OP-9, ration card Ex. OP-10 and closed the evidence.

5.               The ld. counsel for the OPs has at the very outset, made a submission that his preliminary objection pleaded in para No.4 of his written statement, be decided before adjudicating the present complaint on merits. The ld. counsel stated that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer. The ld. counsel further submitted that the present case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission ,in case, titled as Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Revision Petition No.658 of 2013, decided on 23/04/2013 and the same has been held by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, in case of Paramjit Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, in C.C No.96 of 2011 decided on 04.07.2014. Wherein the Hon’ble Commission had held “ that policies having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the preview of the Consumer Protection Act.”

6.               On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the case law relied upon by the OPs are not applicable to the facts of the present complaint. He stated that the present case deserves to be adjudicated upon on merits only.

7.               After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the ld. counsel for the OPs. It is well established from Ex-C2 i.e copy of Policy documents (Colly) that the said policy was a unit linked policy. Therefore we are not adjudicating upon the present case on merits. Thus in the light of the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the OPs and the case law relied upon by him in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwal Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd,(Supra) by Hon’ble National Commission and Paramjit Kaur Vs Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd, (Supra) by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, it is established that the policy taken was for investment purpose. The Hon’ble Commission has observed in para no.6 & 7 and held;

“In above said judgment the dispute was regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy and the claim made under that Policy was disallowed by the District Forum by making the following observations:-

“The investment made by the petitioner/complainant was to gain profit. Hence it was invested for commercial purposes and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties. The State Commission Odisha in First Appeal No.162 of 2010 in the case of Smt. Abanti Kumari Sahoo v. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., have held that the money of the petitioner/complainant invested in the share market is no doubt a speculative gain and the speculative investment matter does not come under the Consumer Protection Act and accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal.”

On the basis of the findings so recorded by the District Forum it came to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable under the Act and was dismissed. Against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which did not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the District Forum and accordingly rejected the appeal memo at the admission stage. Dissatisfied with that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon’ble National Commission. It was held that there was no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting inference and the revision was dismissed. It becomes very much clear from this judgment that complaint in respect of the claim under Unit Linked Insurance Policy is not maintainable under the Act; the money having been invested in a speculative business. It appears that on account of that reason itself the learned counsel for the complainant has not refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party”.

8.               Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid case law relied by the OPs, we are of the considerate view that the present complaint is not maintainable, as the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of his grievances against the OPs. Complainant may also be entitled to the benefit of the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC), for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. All the original and requisite documents placed on record be returned to the complainant. Parties to bear their own cost. A copy of the complaint be retained for record. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:30.11.2015                                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)              

                                                                                   President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)

Member