Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/348

Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIC ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Kuldeep Singh Maan

27 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/348 of 17.12.2014

                                      Decided on:        27.05.2015

 

 

Raghbir Singh, resident of House No.132, Old Quarters, Old Police Line, Patiala, now residing in Quarter No.4, Police Station Civil Lines, Nabha Road, Patiala ,M.No.98884-26193.

         

 

                                                                   ….................Complainant

                                      Versus

 

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch at Leela Bhawan, near Gopal Sweets, Patiala , through its Manager.

                                                                  ….................Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.K.S.Mann , Advocate

For Op       :                  Sh.Amit Kumar, Advocate

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that on a representation made by the agent of the Op, having approached him, that the Op had launched a very good scheme under which he will have to pay a single premium and after a gap of three years, the complainant will get double the amount deposited by him, the complainant agreed to purchase the policy of the Op and accordingly purchased policy No.14479731 dated 9.7.2011 having deposited Rs.15000/- with the Op.
2. The Op issued statement of account dated 9.1.2013, from which the complainant came to know that his policy had been discontinued by the Op without any prior notice/intimation. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Op many a times but nobody listened to him so as to give a satisfactory reply. Ultimately, the complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 17.9.2014.After the expiry of a period of three years, the complainant visited the office of the Op  to realize the double the amount of the insurance policy but the complainant came to know that the agent of the Op had sold the policy by making a false representation as the complainant was told that the policy was for a term of 10 years  for the period 9.7.2011 to 9.7.2021 and that he had to pay annual premium of Rs.15000/- for a period of 10 years and he will be entitled to the maturity amount. On coming to know about the said information, the complainant suffered mentally as also physically as a fraud had been played with him by the Op through its agent because the complainant was not in a position to purchase the policy for a period of 10 years and that he purchased the policy under the assurance that he will have to pay the premium once and after three years he will get the double the amount of the same. The Op failed to pay the amount of Rs.30,000/-.The complainant is entitled to the same with interest @18% per annum from the date of the maturity. He is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment suffered by him as also the costs of the complaint. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
3. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the policy of insurance purchased by the complainant was Unit Linked Policy and that Unit Linked Plan of insurance is a commercial activity as the amount of insurance is invested in the market and therefore, the complaint is barred under the Act; that the complaint is barred by limitation in  as much as the policy was purchased on 6.7.2011 but the complaint has been filed beyond a period of two years; that the policy was duly received by the complainant but he failed to approach the Op for cancellation of the same within the free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy and therefore, the complainant has got no right to challenge the policy qua its terms and conditions and that the complaint being false and frivolous, the same is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is denied that the complainant was allured by the Op regarding the policy in question and that he was informed that after three years he will get the double the amount deposited by him. The insurance policy was issued strictly  as per the terms and conditions of the proposal form filled in and signed by the complainant himself containing all the terms and conditions of the policy to be obtained including frequency of payment of annual premium for 10 years and after understanding the contents of the same having signed the declaration. The policy had lapsed due to the non-payment of the regular premium, which was the liability of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The amount due, if any, is payable only on the completion of the entire term of the policy and not at the sweet-will of the complainant. The complainant was well aware about the terms and conditions of the policy and was liable to pay the premium. The Op is not liable for the alleged harassment suffered by the complainant as no fraud had been committed upon the complainant. Moreover, on the basis of the allegation of fraud, the Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint under the Act and therefore, the matter is liable to be referred to the civil court for adjudication .The complainant is not entitled to the refund of Rs.30,000/- qua any damages of Rs.50,000/-.After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C4 and the complainant closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Associate Manager, Legal of the Op at Chandigarh alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and its counsel closed the evidence.
6. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased policy No.14479731 dated 9.7.2011 on a representation made to him by the agent of the Op who asked the complainant to pay a single premium and that after a lapse of three years he will be entitled to the payment of the double the amount of the same. He received the statement of account dated 9.1.2013, from which it was transpired that his policy had been discontinued by the Op without any notice. Thereafter, he visited the office of the Op a number of times but nobody paid any heed to listen him. He was not paid the double the amount paid by him after a gap of three years.
8. On the other hand, it is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant was issued the policy on the basis of the proposal form submitted by him on the basis of the information furnished by him. The original policy bond was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by the complainant but he failed to approach the Op for the cancellation of the same within the Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the insurance policy. It is denied that the complainant was ever assured that after three years the complainant will be entitled to get the double the amount deposited by him. The policy in question had lapsed due to the non-payment of the regular premium and the amount due if any, is payable on completion of the entire term of the policy and not at the sweet-will of the complainant. The complainant, admittedly received the statement of account,Ex.C1 dated 9.1.2013, showing the policy status as discontinued, the amount of the sum insured Rs.15000/-, premium payment frequency as annul. The fund value has been shown as Rs.12169.31 as on 13.9.2012 and the value of discontinued policy as on 9.1.2013 has been shown at Rs.10379.25. It is further provided in the statement of account  that the amount in the discontinued policy fund will be paid out to the person entitled to receive the payment, on completion of the Lock-in-Period specified in the policy schedule of the policy document.
9. Despite the complainant having received the statement of account, Ex.C1 dated 9.1.2013, he did not make any representation before the Op stating that he had not purchased the HDFC SL Pro Growth Super II policy and that he was not aware about the tenure of the policy i.e. 9.7.2011 to 9.7.2021, a fact duly incorporated in the proposal form, Ex.OP5 bearing the signatures of the complainant Sh.Raghbir Singh as also in Ex.OP4, described as ‘most important document’  also bearing the signatures of the complainant. Nowhere in the Unit Linked Proposal Forum, Ex.OP5, it is provided that the term of the policy will be three years and that the complainant will be paid double the amount of the premium deposited by him or that it was a policy of single premium. Rather, it is categorically mentioned in the same that the policy term was 10 years and the frequency of the premium was annual, the installment of the premium being Rs.15000/-. Sum assured on installment premium  is recorded to be Rs.1,50,000/-.Therefore, the policy having been issued by the Op in accordance with the proposal form and the complainant having never opted to get the same cancelled within the free look period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that he was mis-sold the product particularly, when he remained sitting silent on receipt of the statement of account Ex.C1 dated 9.1.2013 and he approached the forum for the first time through the present complaint  only on 18.12.2014.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant failed to point out any inconsistency in the statement of account ,Ex.C1, wherein the fund value of the discontinued policy has been shown at Rs.12169.31 and after having deducted the discontinued charges, the value of the discontinued policy has been shown as Rs.10379.25 as on 9.1.2013. It is provided in the policy No.14479731 , produced by the counsel for the Op, on a direction given by the Forum when the complainant failed to produce the, same that the expiry of the lock-in-period will be on 9.7.2016 and it is further provided in appendix-3 to the Policy Schedule under the Regulation No.6(i) : Where the policyholder exercise the options available at sub-regulation  (ii)  of regulation 4 or does not exercise the option available in terms of the proviso to sub-regulation (i) of regulation 5, the fund value of the policy shall be credited to the discontinued policy fund. The proceeds of the discontinued policy shall be refunded only upon completion of the lock-in-period. The income earned on the fund value shall also be apportioned to the discontinued policy fund and shall not be made available to the share-holder.
11. Here, it is also important to note the options provided under Regulation No.4 given as under: “4. A policyholder shall be entitled to exercise one of the following options upon the discontinuance of the policy:

(i)      Revival of the policy, or

(ii)    Complete withdrawal from the policy without any risk cover.

Under Regulation no.5, the obligations of the insurer for revival of the policy have been provided as under:

“5.     Where a policy is discontinued, the insurer shall take the following steps to enable the policy holder to exercise the option as available in terms of regulation 4:

(i)      Send a notice within a period of 15 days from the date of expiry of grace period to such a policyholder to exercise the said options within a period of 30 days of receipt of the such notice provided that where policyholder does not exercise the option within the stipulated period of 30 days, the policyholder shall be deemed to have exercised the option mentioned at sub regulation (ii) of regulation 4.”

It is no where the plea taken up by the Op that any notice was sent to the complainant within the period of 15 days from the date of expiry of grace period to exercise the option for revival of the policy or for  complete withdrawal from the policy without any risk cover as provided under regulation 4. Therefore, it was the act of deficiency on the part of the Op in not having sent a notice in compliance with the regulation 5 to enable the policyholder to exercise the option either regarding the revival of the policy or regarding complete withdrawal of the policy without any risk cover. The Op straightway sent the statement of account , which is noted half yearly unit statement, to the complainant disclosing the status of the policy as discontinued. Had the Op given the notice in compliance with regulation 5, the complainant might have opted for the revival of the policy and in that event as per explanation (ii) appended to regulation 5, the risk cover alongwith investments made in the segregated funds, less applicable  charges as per the terms and conditions of the policy would have been continued and the Op could not deduct the discontinuance charge of Rs.2051.01 as shown in the statement of account, Ex.C1. In any case, the complainant is not entitled to the double the payment of the amount of the premium paid by him at the time of purchasing the policy. The complainant has also not shown his interest in continuing with the policy by depositing the premiums having fallen due alongwith the revival charges, if any, and rather he has asked for the payment of Rs.30,000/- i.e. the double the amount of the premium deposited by him, which as per the terms and conditions of the policy as discussed above, cannot be paid. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, we find that there occurred a lapse on the part of the Op in not having given the notice to the complainant in compliance with regulation 5 and therefore, the Op is not entitled to deduct the discontinuance charges and therefore, the Op is bound to pay the fund value of Rs.12169.31 due as on 13.9.2012 as per the statement of account, Ex.C1 dated 9.1.2013 and the same shall be paid to the complainant after the completion of the lock-in-period i.e. after 9.7.2016.The complaint is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

 

Dated:27.05 .2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                      Member                                   President