Punjab

Sangrur

CC/579/2014

Jasmail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vikas Sharma

14 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    579  

                                                Instituted on:      07.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       14.05.2015

 

1.     Jasmail Kaur Wd/o Major Singh deceased.

2.     Amandeep Singh 3. Gurdeep Singh sons of Major Singh deceased, all residents of village Bhatuan, Near Guru Ghar, Tehsil Moonak, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainants

                                        Versus

1.             H.D.F.C. Life Insurance Company Ltd. 12^th & 13^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahaluxmi, Maharashtra, Mumbai-400 011 through its CEO.

2.             H.D.F.C. Life Insurance Company Ltd. Dominos Pizza Hut, New Leela Bhawan Patiala, through its Regional Manager.

3.             H.D.F.C. Life Insurance Company Ltd. Nabha Gate, B-III/254, 1^st Floor, Ward No.3, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Sangrur 148 001 through its authorised signatory.

4.             H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Near Sales Tax Barrier, Moonak, Distt. Sangrur Punjab, through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainants   :       Shri Vikas Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.1 to 3       :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP No.4              :       Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Jasmail Kaur, Amandeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh,  complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Major Singh (referred to as DLA in short) obtained a loan from OP number 4 under account number 50200003539332. It is further case of the complainant that the Manager of OP number 4 advised the DLA for taking the insurance policy of HDFC Classic Assure of OPs number 1 to 3 and accordingly the DLA accepted the proposal of OP number 4.  It is further averred that OP number 4 completed all the formalities in the bank and also debited Rs.25,000/- to the above said loan account of Major Singh for payment of first premium, as such, Branch Manager of OP number 4 fill up the form and insured the DLA for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under policy number 16549606 under the plan of ‘HDFC Classic Assure’, but no policy along with terms and conditions was supplied.  It is further averred that on 11.2.2014, the DLA Major Singh died due to sudden attack and after his death the complainants being the legal heirs lodged the claim with the OPs. It is further averred that again in the month of June, 2014 the complainants submitted copies of death certificate, ration card and voter card etc, but the OPs have illegally repudiated the rightful claim of the complainants.  Thereafter the complainants got issued  a legal notice through Shri Bhupesh Kurana, Advocate, Civil Courts, Moonak to the OPs for making the payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, but of no avail.  It is also stated that no policy was issued to the DLA.  It is stated further that since Major Singh has died within 45 days of issuance of the insurance policy,  the withdrawal of the policy after two months is also illegal one. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainants the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of Major Singh i.e. 11.02.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 to 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs as no amount of Rs.25,000/- was ever received from the complainant, that the complainants have no cause of action and locus standi, that the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the Ops have no concern whatsoever with the loan account of the deceased Major Singh with OP number 4. It is denied that the DLA got himself insured on the advice of the Branch Manager of OP number 4.  It is denied that OP number 4 completed the formalities for the DLA.  It is stated further that Major Singh had submitted the proposal form on line for the purchase of the insurance policy and at the time of submitting the proposal form, the DLA had also taken the illustrations and confirmed that he understood the features and benefits of policy.  After submitting the proposal form on line on 4.1.2014, a communication was sent to him to fulfil further requirements by submitting relevant documents for issuance of the policy.  In this way, the policy number 16549606 was issued in favour of Major Singh.  It is further stated that due to non submission of the documents within two months, the said proposal was withdrawn by the Ops. It is stated that the Ops also received a legal notice from the complainants.  However, any deficiency in service is denied on the part of the OPs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, legal objections are taken up that the complainants have unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation and that the complainants have got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, the allegations of the complainants have been denied in toto and submission of the documents by the DLA to OP number 4 have also been denied.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 4 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 statement of account, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-8 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-9 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-10 copy of demand draft, Ex.C-11 copy of remittance inquiry and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops number 1 to 3 have produced Ex.OP1&3/1 copy of reply to legal notice,  Ex.OP1to3/2 copy of online proposal form, Ex.Op1to3/3 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and Ex.OP4/2 copy of accounts statement and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the DLA had applied for issuance of the insurance policy of OPs number 1 to 3 through OP number 4.  OP number 4 had completed the formalities and had debited a sum of Rs.25,000/- being the amount of the premium for the policy ‘HDFC Classic Assure’ of Ops number 1 to 3, in which the sum assured was Rs.2,00,000/- vide policy number 16549606 on 02.01.2014. The DLA expired on 11.02.2014, but the Ops have not paid the claim on the ground that the policy was not issued and only the number of the policy was generated.

 

7.             It is also an admitted fact that the DLA was the consumer of OP number 4 being the account holder and had applied for the said policy and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited to the account of the complainant on 02.01.2014 as per document Ex.C-2 on record, but OPs number 1 to 3 have denied having received the amount of the premium, so the question remains if the amount of Rs.25,000/- had been debited by OP number 4 to the account of the complainant and OPs number 1 to 3 have not received the same, then where this amount of Rs.25,000/- is lying and who is deficient in service in this regard.

 

8.             The complainant was an agriculturist as per the document Ex.Op1to3/2, which is a copy of online policy on record.  The version of the complainant is that the DLA was an uneducated person and was a simple farmer and it cannot be supposed that an illiterate person could not apply on line policy.  Since OP number 4 has debited the amount of premium to the account of the DLA, so it can very well be assured that the online policy was supplied by OP number 4.  On the other hand, the version of OPs number 1 to 3 is that the DLA never submitted the required papers, so the number generated with regard to the policy was not in force.  We have gone through the file and we do not find any mention in the complaint that the subsequent papers were submitted by the DLA.  Further neither the policy nor premium receipt have been received by the DLA, so the version of the OPs number 1 to 3 that they have not received the amount of premium is not tenable in the light of document Ex.C-11, which clearly shows that the amount has been sent to OPs number 1 to 3 on 8.1.2014 by OP number 4 i.e. bank.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that OP number 1 to 3 had retained the amount of Rs.25,000/- of the DLA on the ground that some formalities are pending for the issuance of the policy in question. As the DLA has expired, so no documents were submitted to the Ops number 1 to 3 and the amount of Rs.25,000/- is still lying with OPs number 1 to 3. As such, we are of the considered opinion that OPs number 1 to 3 are deficient and have illegally retained the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was remitted to them by OP number 4 as per the document Ex.C-11.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 to 3 to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of debiting the amount to the account of the DLA i.e. 2.1.2014 till realisation.  Op number 1 to 3 is further directed to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 14, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                          

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member