Delhi

East Delhi

CC/362/2014

SANDEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC GIFT INS - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 362/14

 

Shri Sandeep Singh

S/o Shri Diwan Singh

R/o Block-C, 14, Krishna Park

Khanpur, Delhi – 110 062                                                                       ….Complainant

Vs.

1. HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Branch Off: HDFC SL Mayur Vihar Branch

Plot No. 1A, First Floor

Star City Mall, Mayur Place Distt. Centre

Phase – I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi – 110 091

 

2. Rohan (Manager)

HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd.

Branch Off: HDFC SL Mayur Vihar Branch

Plot No. 1A, First Floor

Star City Mall, Mayur Place Distt. Centre

Phase – I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi – 110 091Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 11.04.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 06.04.2018

Judgment Passed on: 09.04.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Sandeep Singh against HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) and Mr. Rohan, Manager of OP-1    (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services.   

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a life insurance policy ‘SL Classic Assured Plan’ from OP and paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the first policy.  The policy was issued on 14.01.2013 vide policy no. 15733426.  The official of OP assured the complainant that he would get a credit card with credit limit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on taking the said policy. 

            When complainant asked OP to issue credit card, the office of OP again proposed the same policy with different condition.  The official of OP convinced the complainant and the complainant again paid a sum of            Rs. 49,999/- to OP and another policy was issued on 02.0.20213 vide policy no. 15786886, thereafter, the complainant relocated to Mumbai.  OP once again proposed another policy worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and complainant’s father  again paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque, but the cheque got dishonoured. 

            It was stated that in the month of August, 2013, the complainant sent a mail to the Grievance Redressal Cell of OP and asked to cancel both policy and refund the deposit amount, but OP refused to refund the amount.  The complainant made a complaint with Mediation Centre on 13.12.2013, but nothing was done.  The complainant visited at the office of OP many times, but did not get any satisfactory reply. 

            It was stated that the said acts and conduct of OP amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest; Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.        

            The complainant has annexed policy features, letters from OP for policy no. 15733426 dated 16.01.2013 and policy no. 15786886 dated 02.02.2013, copy of policy document for policy no. 15733426 and 15786886 alongwith schedule of benefits, mediation report and IRDA notification alongwith the complaint.

3. OPs filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as based upon the duly signed proposal forms and other related documents, OP issued policy no. 15733426 and 15786886 to the complainant with risk commencement from 14.01.2013 and 31.01.2013 respectively for paying term of seven years with annual premium of             Rs. 50,000/- and  Rs. 49,999/- respectively. 

It was stated that both policies were delivered to the complainant on 21.03.2013 and as per regulation of IRDA and terms and conditions, the complainant was given an option of “Cancellation in the Free-Look Period” to cancel the policies within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said policies, but complainant failed to exercise the Free-Look Cancellation option.It was further stated that the complainant asked for refund vide his communication dated 13.08.2013, after lapse of Free-Look period of 30 days which was duly replied vide mail dated 28.08.2013..Other facts have also been denied.

            OP has annexed copy of both policies with standard policy provisions, proposal form and first premium receipt alongwith written statement.        

  4.       In his rejoinder to the WS filed by OP, the complainant has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            OP have examined Shri Akash Singh, Associate Manager-Legal of OP, who have examined himself on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as true copy of authorization (Ex.-OP/1), copies of both policies (Ex.-OP/2 and (Ex.-OP/3 colly.) and email dated 28.08.2013 (Ex.-OP/4).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The case of the complainant is that OP did not refund the premium paid on policy no. 15733426 and 15786886 which was Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 49,999/- respectively.  The question is whether OP was deficient in providing services to the complainant, when the complainant himself failed to exercise option of cancellation in the Free Look period of 30 days.  The complainant sought refund of premium in the month of August 2013, whereas policies were delivered on 21.03.2013.  Thus, the complainant failed to exercise option of cancellation within free look period.  The complainant has also annexed the letter dated 16.01.2013 and 02.02.2013 where complainant was communicated with the option of cancellation available to him and thereafter if reason found valid, premium would be refunded.  Thus, having failed to exercise the option available to him, the complainant cannot allege deficiency in service against OP, therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without orders to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President