Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/157/2014

Paramjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh MPS Batra

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.157 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  18.12.2014                    

                                                        Date of decision   :  25.11.2016

Paramjit Kaur age 50 years, wife of Sadhu Singh R/o village Talwara, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, Mandi Gobindgarh Branch, Hukam Chand Building, P.O. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Manager.
2.  HDFC Standard Life Assurance Company Limited, 279, Ward No.20, Near Gurdwara Kalgidhar Saheb, GT Road, Khanna through its Manager.
3. Manoj Arora, Executive HDFC Bank C/o HDFC Bank, Mandi Gobindgarh Branch, Hukam Chand Building, P.O. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.( OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 29.01.2016.)

…..Opposite parties    

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                             

    Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member  

 

Present :    Sh. M.P.S.Batra , Adv.Cl. for the complainant.            

                   Sh. K.K. Garg, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1.

                  Sh. R.K. Dhiman, Adv.Cl. for OP No.2.

                  Opposite party No.3 deleted.

 

                           

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Paramjit Kaur age 50 years, wife of Sadhu Singh R/o village Talwara, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant along with her husband opened a joint account bearing No.0342190007544 in the Bank of OP No.1. As per assurance given by OP No.3 that there is high rate of interest on FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- for one year and 16 days, the complainant invested Rs.1,00,000/- in said FDR. The OPs issued cash receiving slip for said FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- and told that the FDR will be delivered to the complainant within 15 days and took signatures of the complainant on some blank forms.  Thereafter the complainant along with her husband visited the Bank of the OPs 2 to 3 times and requested to deliver the FDR but OP No.3 asked the complainant that the same will be delivered in few days. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked when the OPs issued a Policy bearing No.14492749 dated 15.07.2011 for Rs.1,00,000/- instead of FDR for the same amount. The OPs also issued one another policy bearing No.14726837 of Rs.30,000/- by taking signatures of the complainant on blank forms and withdrew the money from the bank account of the complainant without her consent.  The OPs also withdrew another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the bank account of the complainant on dated 15.07.2012 for the said policy without the consent of the complainant. The complainant raised protest in the bank many times against the said act of OP No.3 and other staff but in vain. The complainant never aware of the terms and conditions of the unwanted, undemanded policies. It is further stated that the OPs invested the amount of the complainant in HDFC SL Rest Insurance plan of Rs.1,00,000/- as premium for each year for a term of 10 years and in HDFC SL Young Star Super Premium Insurance plan of Rs.30,000/- as premium for each year for a term of 10 years instead of FDRs as demanded by the complainant.  The complainant again visited the office of the OP, where it gave assurance that the policies will be surrendered and money will be deposited in the bank account of the complainant, but till date nothing has been paid to the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.2,30,000/- along with interest and further to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with litigation expenses.

3.               Notice of the complaint was issued to OPs No.1 & 2, who appeared through their counsel. Notice of the complaint was also issued to OP No.3, but he could not be served as he has been reported to leave the given address. No new address has been given by the complainant despite so many opportunities. Hence, OP No.3 is deleted from the array of the OPs.

4.               In reply to the complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable and competent as the complainant does not fall within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has neither any cause of action nor has any basis to file the present complaint; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous and fictitious and baseless. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OP No.1 stated that the complainant never approached it for obtaining any FDR, rather she voluntarily purchased the insurance policies in question. The complainant has concocted and fabricated a false story.  It is further stated that the said policies were issued by OP No.2 and OP No.2 is only competent to surrender/cancel the said insurance policies or to return the premium amount of the said policies. All the terms and conditions and insurance premium plan were duly explained to the complainant and the complainant after satisfying herself purchased the insurance policies in question.  The terms and conditions as well as premium plan are duly mentioned in the said policies and the complainant never raised any objections regarding the same. No complaint was lodged by the complainant with it within the free look period for cancellation of the policies.  As per terms and conditions of the policies, the complainant is bound to pay insurance premiums.  There is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.

5.               In reply to the complaint, OP No.2 also raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint has been filed on mere conjectures and surmises; the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and false and baseless submissions have been made therein and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. As regards to the facts of the complaint OP No.2 stated that the insurance policies in question were issued by it on the basis of proposal forms submitted by the complainant duly signed and after understanding contents thereof and furnishing declaration to this effect and therefore nothing lies in her mouth to say that she intended to obtain FDRs. It is further stated that as per Rules and regulations of the IRDA, every policy holder is given a period of 15 days to weigh the policy terms and conditions and in case he/she is not satisfied with its terms and conditions and the benefit offered under the policy, the policy holder is at liberty to get the policy cancelled and get the amount refunded but the complainant even failed to approach OP No.2 within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of the policies and, as such, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the insurance premium at this belated stage. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

6.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copies of Aadhaar card Ex. C-2, attested copy of bank statement Ex. C-3,  affidavit of Sadhu Singh Ex. C-4, attested copy  of receipt Ex. C-5, attested copy of acknowledgement Ex. C-6, attested copy of letter dated 28.10.2013 Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sameer Kapoor Ex. OP1/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Khanna, Ex. OP2/1, true copies of documents i.e. application dated 25.10.2013 Ex. OP2/2, letter dated 29.12.2014 Ex. OP2/3, affidavit dated 18.07.2011 Ex. OP2/4, voter card Ex. OP2/5, service ID card Ex. OP2/6, Ration Card Ex. OP-2/7, Account statement Ex. OP2/8, Request for cancellation Ex. OP2/9, personal details Ex. OP2/10, Form No.61, Ex. OP2/11, policy form Ex. OP2/12, product code Ex. OP2/13, unit linked proposal form Ex. OP2/14 and closed the evidence.

7.               The ld. counsel for the OPs has at the very outset, made a submission that their objection with regard to maintainability, 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 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.”  

8.                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. The ld. counsel relied upon the case titled as  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bikram Singh, 2016(2) CPJ 183.

9.                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-OP2/14 i.e unit linked proposal form (Colly) that the said policy was a unit linked policy. The case law citied by the ld. counsel for the complainant is based on different facts and circumstance; hence the same is not applicable to the present case. 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.”

10                        Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid case law, 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 hereby disposed of with the direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of Law for redressal of her 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.   

11.             Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:25.11.2016                                                                  (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                                                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                     (Veena Chahal)

                                                                                     Member

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)

Member