Delhi

East Delhi

CC/941/2014

DEEPAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIFE INS. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2017

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. 941/14

 

Shri Deepak Malhotra

R/o H. No. B-19/2, Street No. 6

New Govind Pura

Delhi – 110 051                                                                              ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Office – GE Sagar Plaza, District Centre

Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regd. Off,: Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg

169, Backbay Reclamation

Church Gate, Mumbai9 - 400020                                                ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 04.12.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 09.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 16.01.2017

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 Deepak Malhotra against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Col. Ltd., Branch Office (OP-1) and HDFC Stand Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office (OP-2) alleging unfair trade practice.

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant had purchased insurance policy “UL Young Star Suvidha Plus” bearing no. 11587918 and client ID-52987906 from OP.   It is stated that the said plan was a child plan wherelse the complainant had opted for some other plan as he was unmarried.  It is further stated that OP reimbursed the complainant with Rs. 1,50,000/-  being the amount of premiums paid.  It was also stated that the signatures on the proposal form were forged and the policy bond did not bear the name of the plan on the bond.  The complainant had also approached the insurance ombudsman for miss-sale of the policy.

            The complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay interest on premium paid, treating it as recurring deposit of Rs. 3,000/-p.m. for      50 months @ 9.25% amounting to Rs. 34,200/-.  Interest paid on fixed deposit on Rs. 1,84,200/- for 6 months (March 2012 to August 2012) @ 9.25% totaling Rs. 8,618/-, interest on fixed deposit of Rs. 42,818/- from September 2012 @ 9.25% amounting to Rs. 8,600/-, total interest         Rs. 51,418/-, litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/-  and compensation for mental agony and pain.  Printout of the product features as shown on the site of OP, order of insurance ombudsman dated 06.08.2014, covering letter dated 01.02.2008 alongwith policy bond and proposal form are annexed with the complaint.

3.        Notice was served upon OPs who filed their reply, where they took the plea that as the complainant had alleged forgery, thus the consumer forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It was stated that the plan which had been issued to the complainant was not restricted to children and could be offered to person from 18 years to 56 years.  It was also stated that the premium amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was refunded to the complainant as goodwill gesture.  It was stated that as the complainant had enjoyed the insurance coverage thus he was not entitled to any interest on premiums. 

4.        Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP and complainant in support of their averments.  The complainant examined Shri Deepak Malhotra, the complainant himself and placed reliance on order of ombudsman (Ex.CW1/1), copy of advertisement (Ex.CW1/2), complaint before ombudsman (Ex.CW1/3), and copy of proposal form (Ex.CW1/4).

            Shri Akash Singh, Associate Manager of OP-2 deposed on behalf of OP and reiterated the contents of WS.

5.        We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased policy no. 11587918.  It is also an admitted fact that Rs. 1,50,000/- had been paid to the complainant.  The complainant has demanded interest on the premiums paid.  Ex.CW1/2 is the copy of advertisement where it has been mentioned that it was a child plan for safeguarding the future of the child.  As far as the averment regarding forged signatures is concerned, complainant, after paying premium for 3 years cannot come with the allegation that he was sold another product by OP and his signatures were forged on the documents. 

Refund of premium by OP by merely stating that the act was a good will gesture on their part cannot absolve OP of their negligence of issuing wrong plan to the complainant.  Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay interest on premium paid @ 6% p.a. from the commencement of policy till the date, when amount of                     Rs. 1,50,000/-  was refunded to the complainant. 

            We also award Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.  This shall include cost of litigation.  

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

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

                       Member                                                                                 Member    

                                           (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                   President