DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO.347/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
02.06.2016 09.06.2016 28.04.2017
Complainant = Vs. = O.P.
Mr. Arindam Banerjee, 1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance
S/o. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Co. Ltd, 3, Red Cross Place
Flat –ID, Block-C, Menaka Estate, Ground and
“Teen Kannya Complex”, 1st floor, Kolkata- 700001.
204, R.N. Guha Road, 2. The Branch Manager,
Kolkata- 700028. HDFC Bank,
63/2, Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Road,
Dum Dum,
Kolkata- 700028.
P R E S E N T :- Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay…President
:- Smt. Kabita Acharjee (Goswami)….Member
J U D G E M E N T
This case has been filed by the complainant- Mr. Arindam Banerjee, on 02.06.2016 under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd and another.
The facts of the case, to put in a nutshell are as below:-
The O.Ps are insurance company from whom the complainant purchased two policies investing Rs. 2,50,000/- in a short term manner on the assurance that the complainant would get back of Rs. 3,50,000/- after 5 years (vide two policies Nos.13815319 and 13807794). The complainant returned two policies to O.Ps and took answer policy being No. 16194699. Selling was done by O.Ps for illegal gain and it is a case of mis sell as complaint was not read over and explained the terms and condition of the said Insurance Policy by the O.Ps. The policy No. 16194699 was mis-sold to the complainant.
After scrutiny of the policy by the father of the complainant in the year 2012 it was found that the policies were unit linked. Hence, this is a case of miss-selling and the complainant has been befooled and cheated by the O.Ps. It is the case of miss-sale of the policies which is the outcome of evil design of the O.Ps.
The notice was delivered on 20.06.2016 but he O.Ps did not contest the case. Hence the ex parte hearing.
The O.Ps did not refund the money rather misguided the complainant and the father in a clandestine manner for wrongful gain. All the correspondences by the complainant to the O.Ps went futile. Hence, the complainant prays for refund of the policy amount in connection with policy No. 16194699 and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-. Perused the journal showing mis-sale.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-347/2016
- :: 2 :: -
From the pleadings of the parties the following points have been framed for decision:-
1). Is the complainant a consumer?
2). Are the O.Ps deficient in service?
3). Did the O.Ps resort to unfair trade practice?
4). What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
Reasoned Decision
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and convenience. Before we discuss the points, let us look at the documentary evidence.
The following documents have been filed by the complainant:-
1). A letter dated 02.08.2013.
2). HDFC Life Sampoorn Samridhi Insurance Plan dated 22.07.2013.
3). Acknowledgement letter dated 17.12.2013.
4). A letter dated 10.12.2013.
5). A letter dated 02.12.2013.
6). A letter dated 21.11.2013.
7). A letter dated 11.11.2013.A
8). A letter dated 18.10.2013.
9). A letter dated 10.10.2013.
10).A letter dated 25.11.2013.
11) A letter dated 07.12.2013
12). A letter dated 03.03.2014.
13). A letter dated 09.10.2013.
14). A letter dated 30.10.2013.
15). A letter dated 16.12.2013.
16). Track Report dated 20.06.2016.
17). Track Report dated 20.06.2016.
Let us take up the documents of service of notice dated 20.06.2016 the track reports placed by the complainant have established that the items were delivered to the proper person i.e. HDFC Life.
The affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant on 25.11.2016.
The BNA was filed by the complainant on 27.12.2016.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-347/2016
- :: 3 :: -
Perused the original policy document (Policy kit of HDFC Life policy No. 16194699). The premium amount is Rs. 49,999/- (annexure 14). The date of first premium receipt is 28.07.2013 as per the correspondences made between the parties and the pleadings along with the affidavit we are inclined to hold that the policy was mis-sold to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 49,999/-. Moreover, complainant was harassed time and again and he suffered mentally for such dubious dealing which we turn mis-sale. We, therefore, hold that the O.Ps were deficient in service and they resorted to unfair trade practice.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund of Rs. 49,999/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which complainant shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution.
The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 49,999/- as decretal due and Rs. 4,000/- as compensation plus litigation cost totaling Rs. 53,999/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest of 10% thereon from the date it is due till realization.
Copy be delivered to the parties free of cost.
Member President
