DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.67 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 20.02.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 14.11.2017
Saroj Devi wife of Shri Vijay Parkash, resident of House No. 2162, Sector 13, HUDA Bhiwani.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
- HDFC Bank through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Near Meham Gate, Bhiwani.
- HDFC Bank Ltd. Sandoz House, 2nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai, Maharashtra.
…….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Sudesh, Member
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri M.C. Sangwan, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Punia, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is customer of OP no. 1. It is alleged that on the request of the officials of the OP, the complainant had given Rs. 50,000/- to the officials of the OP for making FD and the complainant signed the some papers. It is alleged that the officials of the OP issued FD for Rs. 50,000/- and returned Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant and told the complainant that the FD of Rs. 46,000/- shall be issued but the OPs issued a policy bond of HDFC life insurance bearing annual premium of Rs. 46,000/- for 10 years and vide the said policy bond a insurance of Rs. 4,60,000/- was effected. The officials of the OP fraudulently taken the money from the complainant in the name of FD but issued life insurance policy. It is further alleged that the complainant is not in a position to pay annual premium of Rs. 46,000/- to the OP for the said policy. The complainant also represented to the officials of the OP regarding his grievance. It is alleged that the OPs are liable to refund Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest and cost etc. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the employee of the answering respondents has never visited the house of the complainant for opening fixed deposit scheme. It is submitted that the complainant has approached the employee of the OPs for taking HDFC Life Insurance Policy and she and her husband had signed the form for taking HDFC life insurance policy after raiding the same and also paid 1st installment of premium of Rs. 46,000/- and the OPs have issued the HDFC Life Insurance Policy to her, so the question of fixed deposit does not arise, as the OPs employee never approached the complainant for opening FD account in the Bank. It is submitted that the complainant has taken a HDFC Life Insurance Policy for Rs. 4,60,000/- for 10 years by signing the necessary documents and she also paid first installment of Rs. 46,000/- and the complainant has never been asked for the opening of fixed deposit account. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record documents Annexure P-1 to P-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant is customer of OP no. 1. On the request of the officials of the OP, the complainant had given Rs. 50,000/- to the officials of the OP for making FD and the complainant signed the some papers. The officials of the OP issued FD for Rs. 50,000/- and returned Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant and told the complainant that the FD of Rs. 46,000/- shall be issued but the OPs issued a policy bond of HDFC life insurance bearing annual premium of Rs. 46,000/- for 10 years. Vide the said policy bond a insurance of Rs. 4,60,000/- was effected. The officials of the OP fraudulently taken the money from the complainant in the name of FD but issued life insurance policy. The complainant is not in a position to pay annual premium of Rs. 46,000/- to the OP for the said policy. The complainant also represented to the officials of the OP regarding his grievance. He submitted that the OPs are liable to refund Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest and cost etc.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the complainant and as well as her husband have signed the papers in English and both are educated and they have signed the papers for the issue of the policy bond after understanding the contents thereof. He submitted that on the request of the complainant the life insurance policy was issued and the complainant had paid Rs. 46,000/- as first annual premium of the said policy. The complainant has not asked to make the FD of the said amount. He submitted that the free lock period of 15 days is provided in the policy bond and has beneficiary option to get cancel the policy, if she is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant did not exercise her option for the cancellation of the policy during the free lock period of 15 days. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
7. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. We found that the complainant has not given the relevant dates while giving his version in the complaint which are material part of facts. There is a letter dated 3.12.2014 issued by the OP no. 1 to the complainant in reference to her complaint dated 28.11.2014. The complainant has produced the letter dated 25.3.2014 Annexure P-1 vide which the insurance policy in question has been issued to the complainant. It means that the policy in question was issued to the complainant on 25.3.2014 and the complainant has made complaint to the OPs on 28.11.2014, after about 8 months from the issue of the policy. The request of the OP for the cancellation of the policy was declined by the OP on the ground that the cancellation request was not made by the complainant within free lock period of 15 days. It would be pertinent to mention here that the officials of the private sector banks are burdened to sell the products of their subsidiaries. This fact cannot be denied that the officials of the bank press and try to convince the customers of their bank to purchase the products of the bank’s subsidiary(s). Admittedly, the complainant has not deposited any further annual premium against the said policy in question. Because, she is not interested to continue her policy. This policy was issued for the insured of Rs. 4,60,000/- and during the currency of the said policy, the complainant remained insured for the policy amount and in case of any eventuality, the OP were liable to pay the insured amount to the legal heirs of the complainant. Therefore, the company is entitled to retain 20 per cent of the premium amount, because the policy in question remained inforce for one year. We partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the OPs. The OPs are directed to refund the premium after deducting 20 per cent of the premium amount to the complainant, within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OPs shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:14.11.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
