BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.455 of 2015
Date of Instt. 19.10.2015
Date of Decision: 14.06.2017
Satnam Singh Kahlon, 45 Castee View Road, Slough SL 37 NH, England through his Special Power of Attorney holder Shri Davinder Singh son of Shri Karnail Singh, resident of Village Chakrala, Post Office Mustfapur, Tehsil Kartarpur, District Jalandhar. ..........Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Bank, 88, Dhaliwal Tower, Mahavir Marg, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.
2. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, 1st and 2nd Floor, Gupta Chambers, Opposite NRI Sabha, New Courts Road, Jalandhar144001.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. RK Arora, Adv Counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by complainant through his attorney Shri Davinder Singh, wherein alleged that the complainant is NRI and he is not in position to pursue the present complaint. Therefore, he appointed his attorney Davinder Singh to whom he has given Power of Attorney dated 02.03.2015.
2. The complainant having a saving account No.12631060001798 with HDFC Bank having branch at 88, Dhaliwal Tower, Mahavir Marg, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar in joint name with his wife Jaswinder Kaur since long. In the month of January, 2010, the complainant had come back in India and before leaving India, the complainant visited the OP No.1 bank branch and expressed his desire to get surplus amount deposited in the shape of FDRs and at that time, the concerned Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Branch advised the complainant to get issued FDRs from HDFC Standard Life Insurance in order to enjoy additional benefits of life Insurance besides getting interest on fixed deposits, the complainant was introduced with one Mr. Harpreet Singh as Manager of the said HDFC Standard Life Insurance Branch in the same Bank Premises, he also assured in the similar lines with the Manager of HDFC Bank in front of Davinder Singh son of Karnail Singh and his another friend. Accordingly, some blank forms of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance were got signed from the complainant by the said Manager of the said Bank Branch and Branch Manager of HDFC Life Insurance available in Dhaliwal Tower, Mahavir Marg, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar and at their instance, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- from his saving fund account No.12631060001798 with HDFC Bank towards the Fixed Deposit totaling Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of five years. At that time, the complainant was not issued any Fixed Deposits Receipts and he was asked to collect the receipts after few days but the complainant informed the branch managers that he would be leaving by the next day then the said manager Mr. Harpreet Singh assured that he would get the same delivered at his foreign address. Copy of the bank account statement of the complainant is also annexed herewith. Thereafter, the complainant left for England but he did not receive any Fixed Deposit Receipts inspite of requesting for the same over phone from England and when he returned back from abroad after about one year, he visited HDFC Bank and HDFC Standard Life Insurance branch and met the then branch managers and demanded fixed deposit receipts for Rs.5,00,000/- but he shocked to know that there were no FDR on record in those days and on making further enquiry, it transpired that the then managers of HDFC Bank and HDFC Standard Life Insurance in connivance with each other got issued life insurance Policies with annual premium of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- with fraudulent intentions and without disclosing any such fact to the complainant. As such, the complainant on coming to know their fraudulent act and conduct hotly protested and also demanded his money back alongwith interest but the then manager assured the complainant that he would email the grievances of the complainant to the senior officers of the bank and get issued the FDRs for the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period five years. The complainant was left with no other alternatives except in believing the assurances of the branch manager. The complainant again left for England but kept on enquiring about the fate of FDRs but no satisfactory answer were given to him at his regular telephone calls made from England and personal visits of the complainant's relative Shri Davinder Singh. During the next visit of the complainant from England in subsequent years, he again specifically visited to get receipts of fixed deposits, the branch manager of HDFC Standard Life Insurance taken a written complaint from the complainant to forward the same to higher authorities and given assurance to get the Fixed Deposits Receipts issued of Rs.5,00,000/- for the period of five year from the date of deposit of the amount. The complainant again believed of the assurances of the manager of the OP.
3. Now recently in the month of February, 2015 when the complainant went to the office of OP No.2, to collect the maturity amount of FDRs and then the complainant was stunned when the manager of HDFC Standard Life Insurance told the complainant that his amount stand forfeited due to non payment of regular annual premium of Rs.5,00,000/- and on account of lapse of policies No.13447217 and 13442879. On this the complainant got very depressed and strongly insisted upon the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest for the period of five years but he was misbehaved by the officials of the OP No.2. The officials of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Branch were insisting upon the HDFC Life Insurance forms and when the complainant gone through those forms it was only then it was transpired that those were the forms which got signed from the complainant in blank and filled in later on at the back of the complainant. The complainant got the copies of those forms and noticed that at some columns of the forms, the signatures of the complainant were also forged by the then concerned officers of the HDFC Bank branch and HDFC Standard Life Insurance in connivance with each other. The complainant is ready to make available his specimen signatures and specimen writing in order to bring on record the fraudulent conduct as well as unfair trade practice of the OPs.
4. That on 16.05.2015, a legal notice was sent to call upon the OPs, to redress the grievances of the complainant by making the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- with due interest for the period of five years within a period of seven days, but all in vain and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- got deposited from the complainant by the OPs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till realization and further direction be given to the OPs to pay the damages/compensation for mental tension, torture and physical harassment to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP No.2 filed its written reply through his counsel and whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OP No.2 by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP No.2 and the same is liable to be dismissed. The request regarding the cancellation of the policy was not made by the complainant within the Free Look Period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy, which was specifically subscribed on the insurance policy, sent to the complainant by the OP No.2. So, the present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.2. Moreover, the policy of the complainant was lapsed due to the non payment of renewal premium of Rs.3,19,150/- on August 11, 2011 and intimation regarding the lapse of policy was duly given to the complainant by the answering OP No.2. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for being after thought one. It is further alleged that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed and even the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the present complaint. Complainant himself approached the answering OP No.2 for investing his fund in the policy of the OP No.2 for 10 years and now the complainant cannot be allowed to falsely implicate the answering OP No.2 in the present false complaint. The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and further alleged that the present complaint is barred by limitation. So, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the present complaint contains intricate and complicated questions of facts and law and voluminous evidence is required by the Forum to reach at the just and final conclusion and thus the complaint should be relegated to its remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievances of the complainant. On merits, all the averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the complainant who approached the agent of the answering OP No.2 and shows his interest to invest his money in the insurance policy, the terms and conditions of the policy were duly explained to the complainant by the agent of the OP No.2. That after reading, understanding and admitting the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to be correct one, the complainant duly signed the proposal form of the policy. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being after thought. The request regarding the cancellation of policy was received on 03.03.2011, which was beyond the Free Look Period of the policy and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and supplementary affidavit Ex.CA1 alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith some documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant is only that the complainant Satnam Singh Kahlon made allegation through his attorney, in this complaint that the complainant was defrauded by OP No.2 with the connivance of Manager of HDFC Bank because the complainant wants to deposit the surplus amount in the shape of FDR but instead of depositing the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- of the complainant in fixed deposit, the OP No.2 issued two insurance policies for a premium of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- yearly for a period of 10 years, whereas the intention of the complainant was not to purchase any insurance policy rather fraudulently, the signature of the complainant was obtained on the blank paper/forms and as such the complainant is entitled for the return of said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest and compensation.
10. The allegation of the complainant have been refuted by OP No.2, with a submission that the complainant himself approached for purchasing of insurance policy and accordingly the terms and conditions of the policies were read over and explained to the complainant and after admitting the same true and correct, the complainant put his signature on the proposal form and as such the story made in this complaint is self cooked story, which is not acceptable and moreover, the complaint of the complainant is time barred.
11. We have considered the above said facts very sympathetically and find that as per version of the complainant as elaborated in para No.2 of the complaint that in the month of January, 2010, he deposited the said amount either in the shape of FDRs or purchase of insurance policy, the date for depositing is January, 2010 and in para No.3, he categorically described that when he returned from abroad after one year, means in the month of January, 2011, he came to know that there is no FDR on record in those days, in the said HDFC Standard Life Insurance and further alleged that his amount was fraudulently invested in the Life Insurance Policy. So, it means that the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the month of January, 2011. Apart from above, further the complainant himself brought on the file a letter Ex.C12 dated 03.03.2011, whereby asked the OP No.2 to cancel the policies and cause of action accrued to the complainant again from 03.03.2011, but the complainant has filed the instant complaint on 19.10.2015, means after more than 3 ½ years, whereas as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, the consumer complaint can be filed within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. So, from all angle, the complaint of the complainant is time barred.
12. Further coming on merit of the case of the complainant, for that purpose, the complainant alleged that his signature was obtained on blank paper/blank form, infact he deposited the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing a FDR but fraudulently, the manager of the HDFC Bank and manager of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance with connivance of each other, invested the amount of the complainant in insurance policy but this version of the complainant is not digestible. For the reason, the complainant is not an illiterate person. He put his signature in English, which shows that he is educated person and moreover, he is residing in UK for the last more than 18 years and such like person cannot claim that he is rustic villager and cheated by the OP rather as per general phenomenon, one educated person always put his signature on any paper after going through the contents of that document and admittedly in this case, the application form is Ex.OP6 is signed by the complainant, wherein his signatures are not on a blank form rather he also put his signature under the declaration. So, he has well aware that he is investing his amount in the insurance policy but later on due to some reason, he might be not in position to deposit the further premium of every year and ultimately, the insurance policy of the complainant was closed and amount was ordered to be forfeited and under these circumstances, the plea taken by the complainant is not established. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief claimed.
13. It is also the case of the OP that if the complainant wants to get cancel the insurance policy then he has to get it cancel within Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy but in the complaint, the complainant has never alleged that the terms and conditions were not explained to him, non recording of these factum presumed that the term and condition was well within the knowledge of the complainant and even the complainant desired to get cancel the insurance policy that as per settled law, he has to file its cancellation within the Free Look Period of 15 days but he filed an application Ex.C12 on 03.03.2011, means after one year. Therefore, complainant is not entitled for refund of the premium, deposited by him. So, with these observations, the complaint of the complainant fails and therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
14.06.2017 Member President
Satnam Singh Kahlon Vs. HDFC Bank etc.
Present: Sh. RK Arora, Adv Counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 exparte.
Sh. AK Gandhi, Adv Counsel for OP No.2.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of today, the present complaint is dismissed. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
14.06.2017 Member President
