BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 706 of 2013
Date of Institution: 17.10.2013
Date of Decision: 18.5.2016
Mrs. Surinder Sandhu w/o Sh. Balrajwinder Singh Sandhu R/o 18/1, Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Mall Road Branch, 2nd Floor Aventura Mall, 35B, Mall Road, Amritsar through its Branch Incharge
- HDFC Bank Ltd., Plot No. 39, The Mall, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant :Sh.Updip Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 :Sh.Munish Kohli,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Sh.Ramesh Sharma,Adv.
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Mrs.Surinder Sandhu complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is more than 62 years of age and was of age 60-1/2 years in Nov.2011. The complainant was approached by one of the agents/relationship manager of opposite parties, who had full knowledge of the account of the complainant in HDFC Bank and balance thereof. The manager of the opposite parties convinced the complainant to go for a one time FDR type of product of opposite parties with assurance of high yield . Accordingly, he got a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- and got her signatures on blank application form. At that time family of the complainant were in Abroad. When the complainant did not get any document from opposite parties with regard to the investment and when husband of the complainant came back to India in March 2014, he visited the office of opposite parties with regard to investment and was handed over the policy document of said investment. As per document of the investment , it was a HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium with policy No. 14740362 dated 25.11.2011. Further the complainant was surprised to note that the policy was for 10 years and most of the particulars of the complainant were wrongly shown while issuing the said policy. Further more, complainant came to know that as per the Insurance plan, it could not be issued to any person having age more than 60 years of age, whereas complainant was 60-1/2 yeas old on the date of initiation of the said policy . Immediately on receipt of the said policy document, on 4.3.2012 , a complaint was lodged with the opposite parties for initiating cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium paid , for which complaint No. 0100000168723 was issued. Alongwith the said complaint, original policy document was also sent to opposite parties which was again subsequently returned by the opposite parties. Further since no action was being taken by the opposite parties , another letter dated 4.6.2012 was written to opposite parties in this regard. Even e-mails were sent by son of the complainant to opposite parties dated 12.9.2012 and 17.9.2012 respectively. Instead of cancelling the policy issued arbitrarily, opposite parties further withdrew another installment from bank account of the complainant for which e-mails dated 29.11.2012, 30.11.2012, 6.1.2013 and 9.1.2013 were sent by the husband and son of the complainant to the opposite parties and then again letter dated 19.1.2013 and 24.1.2013 , as well. The abovesaid acts of opposite parties of selling the policy of multiple premiums by misrepresenting the same for single premium and selling the policy to complainant of age 60-1/2 years at the time of policy which could not have been sold to person of age more than 60 years and further not cancelling the same despite repeated requests and thereafter withdrawing second premium illegally and arbitrarily from her account, is gross deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice which has resulted into harassment as well as mental agony alongwith financial loss to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to be compensated as well as alongwith refund of the premium amount with interest. The complainant has prayed for following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
i) Refund Rs. 10 lacs, two premiums received under the policy, with interest @ 18% p.a from the date of receipt till date of payment ;
ii) Pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for harassment as well as mental agony ;
iii) Pay cost of complaint to the tune of Rs. 22000/-
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply separately.
3. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is malafide and the same has been filed by the complainant with a view to harass and pressurize the opposite party ; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying opposite party in any manner and opposite party had acted in due course in a lawful manner while discharging their official duties. The opposite party cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. As such , complaint being malafide, is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has intentionally not made HDFC Bank a party in this complaint which is a necessary party. Allegation regarding investment in FDR;s single premium was also false and frivolous and just a misrepresentation and concocted story. It is submitted that replying opposite party is and having no connection with HDFC Bank. Moreover, opposite party which is HDFC Standard Life Insurance is different entities from HDFC Ltd having their separate business. There is no commonness business between the two and however no deficiency in service was caused due to negligence of replying opposite party ; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. The true facts are that the complainant showed their willingness and desire to invest in HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium. The complainant had opted HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium by paying a annual premium of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 25.11.2011 for a term of 10 years. The complainant also signed a proposal form dated 25.11.2011 for purchase of HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium Insurance policy, the proposal was accepted on standard rates based on the information provded by the complainant and consequently, policy was issued bearing No. 14740362 to the complainant, Copy of the said proposal form alongwith application is appended herewith for ready reference. Since the complainant is graduate and well qualified person as such she understood each and every thing and this fact clearly establish that she is having full knowledge about the terms and conditions of the policy in question. The complainant had signed all the requisite forms/documents of the policy after fully understanding and admitting the contents/terms and the conditions. It is pertinent to mention here that the term, premium alongwith all the benefit and returns are clearly mentioned in the said illustrations form and now it cannot be suited from the mouth of the complainant that she had invested in FDR’s type of product not in term policy of 10 years. As such , complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant providing her a period of 15 days within which she could have returned the policy to the replying opposite parties by stating the reasons thereof. But the complainant did not return the same within the said period. No request was ever made to the replying opposite party for surrendering the policy in question. This act and conduct of the complainant by not returning or surrendering the policy documents within the given period signified her acceptance of the terms and conditions contained in the said policy documents . Hence, the present complainant has already taken al the benefits of the policy in question for a period of two years for which she paid the premium. Under the law, rules and regulation of the policy and Insurance company, once the complainant has utilized the policy for which she has given the premium, she has no legal right to claim the refund of the premium amount or damages from the replying opposite party. On merits , facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In its written version, opposite party No.2 also took certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that opposite party No.2 has been summoned in the complaint on account of an application filed by the complainant for impleading it as a party. The application did not disclose any sound reason for impleading it as a party. The case was almost at the last stage when the application for summoning was moved and the application was liable to be dismissed and the replying opposite party should not have been summoned ; that the copy of the complaint sent to the replying opposite party was not supported by any document which should have been filed by the complainant and in the absence of it, proper and effective written statement cannot be filed by opposite party No.2 and therefore , it reserves its right to file an effective and proper written version after receipt of the documents from this Forum ; that the complaint is suppression of true and material facts and is devoid of truth. The copy of the complaint which has been sent is that of the amended complaint and not of the original complaint. The original complaint should also have been sent to opposite party No.2 if it was summoned as a party ; that complaint against the replying opposite party is not maintainable ; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying opposite party. On merits, it is stated that complainant herself came to the bank and showed her willingness to opt for HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium and wanted to know the full particulars of it. The same were explained to her and having been impressed, she opted for investment in it. No person from the bank approached her. She came to her own to the bank. The bank authorities introduced her to opposite party No.1 who in turn handled her and fulfilled all the necessary and requisite forms getting her signatures on the same. The complainant also filled a form which contains specific instructions for withdrawl of the premium amount from the running account of the complainant in the branch of opposite party No.2. It is,however, admitted that the complainant was having account in her name in HDFC bank. All the policy documents and request forms were with opposite party No.1, who was dealing in this matter and opposite party No.1 is totally a different entity from the replying opposite party. Both have different offices, different business books and the staff of both the entities who draw their pay from their separate offices of opposite parties No.1 & 2. As such opposite parties No.1 & 2 have no concern with each other. The complainant firm approached opposite party No.2 to get the policy cancelled or to get the amount refunded. There was no specific letter from her nor she visited the branch of opposite party No.2. The complainant never instructed opposite party No.2 to not to release the premium of the policy from her bank account. The complainant did not send any e-mail etc. It is the complainant, who is blamed for remitting the second installment of premium. The complainant has not issued any power of attorney to her husband or son to make any representation to the bank in this regard or to get the policy cancelled or to get the amount refunded. There was no deficiency in service and also there was no unfair trade practice on the part of replying opposite party and they have not caused any harassment , mental pain , agony and financial loss to the complainant, as alleged and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
5. In his bid to prove Sh.Updip Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of condition of NPS Ex.C-2, copy of policy documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 4.7.2009 Ex.C-6, copy of e-mail dated 12.9.2012 Ex.C-7, copy of e-mail dated 17.9.2012 Ex.C-8, copy of e-mail dated 17.9.2012 Ex.C-9, copy of e-mail dated 29.11.2012 Ex.C-10 Ex.C-11, copy of e-mail dated 30.11.2012 Ex.C-12 ,C-13, e-mail dated 6.1.2013 Ex.C-14, e-mail dated 9.1.2013 Ex.C-15, letter dated 19.1.2013 Ex.C-16, C-17, letter dated 24.1.2013 Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Munish Kohli,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna Ex.OP1, illustration form Ex.OP2, letter dated 29.11.2011 Ex.OP3, letter dated 18.4.2012 Ex.OP4, copy of CCR Ex.OP5, mandate form Ex.OP6, declaration form Ex.OP7, letter dated 1.7.2013 Ex.OP8, letter dated 4.6.2012 Ex.OP9, copy of PAN card Ex.OP10, copy of brochure Ex.OP11, copy of proof of delivery Ex.OP12.
7. On the other hand Sh.Ramesh Sharma,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Vivek Abhi, Branch Manager Ex.OP2/1
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
9. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 vehemently contended that it is not denied that the complainant obtained Insurance policy i.e. HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium bearing policy No. 14740362 dated 25.11.2011 which was for a period of 10 years. The complainant is admittedly a graduate lady and she signed the proposal form required for issue of the Insurance policy. Signatures appearing on the proposal form happen to be in English and the terms and conditions of the policy were also in English. So it does not lie in the mouth of Smt. Surinder Sandhu to contend that the terms and conditions of the policy in dispute were not brought to her notice. The complainant was having 15 days free look period to get the Insurance Policy in dispute cancelled/withdrawn. But she did not opt to exercise her volition for the reasons best known to her. It is now too late for her to contend that any deception or unfair trade practice has been practised upon her while issuing Insurance policy in dispute. Further contention that the complainant was of the age of 60-1/2 years at the time of initiation of the Insurance policy in dispute while the terms and conditions of the policy state that it could be issued in favour of a person, who was not having an age of more than 60 years at the time of initiation of the policy. This contention is also devoid of any merit , because it was on the request of the complainant herself that this policy was issued in her favour. Moreover, minimum/maximum entry age as per eligibility of HDFC Life Personal Pension Regular Premium was 18-65 years. The complainant has already obtained the benefit of the policy since the year 2011 till date and as such the complainant is not entitled for cancellation of the policy nor she is entitled to refund of the premium paid or compensation or cost of the litigation as claimed by her vide instant complaint.
10. However, from the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant was not eligible for getting the Insurance policy in dispute issued in her favour. The complainant has placed on record document Ex.C-2 issued by H.D.F.C Pension wherein reply to frequently asked questions (FAQ) have been given. Relevant questions alongwith answers are reproduced for ready reference as under :-
“Who can subscribe for NPS ?
A citizen of India, whether resident or non resident, subject to the following conditions. You should be between 18-60 years of age as on the date of submission of his application to the POP/POP-SP.”
“Is there any maximum age limit for making further contribution to NPS Tier-I account ?
Yes. You can make contribution in your NPS account anytime between the 18 to 60 years of age.After attaining 60 years of age, you will not be permitted to make further contributions to the NPS account.”
11. From the reading of FAQS ; it becomes absolutely clear that the complainant, being above the age of 60 years at the inception of the policy, was neither eligible to subscribe for Pension Policy nor she could make further contributions to the NPS account, which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant while filling up the proposal form in the policy has stated her date of birth as 12.6.1951, copy of the proposal form A/cs for Ex.C-5. From the perusal of the age given in the proposal form , it becomes evident that the complainant was more than the age of 60 years at the time of initiation of the Insurance policy in dispute.
12. There is also evidence on record that the complainant applied for cancellation of the Insurance policy in dispute on 4.6.2012, copy of the application A/cs for Ex.OP9. Even in that letter, the complainant has clearly stated that in continuation of her earlier complaint No.01000000168723 for which no reply has been received shows that even prior to that the complainant had approached the opposite party for cancellation of the Insurance policy in dispute. But even then the opposite party deducted a further premium of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the account of the complainant, with the HDFC Bank i.e. opposite party No.2 which also shows that despite request for cancellation of the Insurance policy in dispute, opposite party No.1 has wrongly deducted the second premium from the account of the complainant without her consent.
13. The complainant wants to get the refund of the premium to the tune of Rs.10 lacs paid by her vide two instalments besides that she has also demanded compensation as well as litigation expenses. Taking into account that deception has been practised upon the complainant at the time of issue of the Insurance Policy in dispute not only that the complainant was not eligible for obtaining the Insurance policy in dispute, second premium to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs was withdrawn from the account of the complainant without her consent or knowledge. In such a situation, in our considered opinion, the complainant is allowed to refund of the premium as per IRDA guidelines and instant complaint stands disposed off accordingly. The complainant shall formally apply for surrender of the Insurance policy alongwith requisite documents within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of order with opposite party No.1, which shall decide the claim within a further period of one month thereafter. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 18.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar ) President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
