Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/127/2018

Ganga Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Vashisth

28 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                                                                  Consumer Complaint No. : 127 of 2018

                                                      Date of Institution             : 18.09.2018

                                                                  Date of order                     : 28.11.2023

 

Ganga Ram son of Sh. Banwari Lal R/o village Riwasa, Tehsil Toshan, District Bhiwani.

  

             ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., S.N. 25-26, 1^st Floor, M.K. Plaza, Hansi Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

2.         H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Grievance Redressal Cell, B Wing 5^th Floor, Eureka, Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Molad(West) Mumbai-400064 (India) through its Manager.

 

3.         H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 12^th and 13^th Floor, Lodha, Excelus, Apollo Mill, Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Malalaxmi-Mumbai-400011 (India) through its Manager.

 

4.         H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 1^st Floor Gupta Garments Building SP-7A Thiru-VI-Ka Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai-600032 (India) Ph.044-66111666 through its Manager.

 

5.         H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, HDFC SL Hisar Branch, 1^st Floor Kamla Palace, 57-60, Kamla Nagar, Red Square Market, Hisar-125001 through its Branch Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

BEFORE:          Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

  Hon’ble Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-          Sh. Kuldeep Vashist, Advocate for complainant.

             Sh. Ashish Goyal, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant purchased a policy ‘Sampporan Samridhi’ bearing No.14513505 dated 22.07.2011 from OPs by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/-.   After that, he fell ill  and was diagnosed as cancer patient.  On 21.06.2012, complainant became seriously ill and had to take treatment for a long and on 26.10.2012, he was admitted at Hooda Maternity  Nursing Home, Meham, Rohtak, then in Jindal Hospital, Hisar on 29.10.2012.  Complainant has submitted that that he had also taken treatment and remained admitted in Jain Orthopedics Hospital, Hisar from 23.01.2023 to 13.05.2023 and further had to take treatment from various hospitals till filing of this complaint and also during its pendency. Complainant has submitted that in such a situation he was unable to pay the premium of the insurance policy.  So, he requested the Ops to refund his deposited amount but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request.  So, legal notices dated 08.09.2017 & 27.07.2018 served upon the OPs but  of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus prayer has been made for issuance of directions to Ops to pay full benefit of the insurance policy alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. Also to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- towards litigation expenses.  Any other relief, which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                     OP appeared through counsel and filed a written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation and complaint being false and frivolous.  On merits, it is submitted that as per terms & conditions of the policy contract, the complainant is under legal obligation to regular adhere to the premium payment schedule for a consecutive period of 5 years (policy term 5 years) but in this case, complainant has paid only one installment and nothing paid for further renewal thus the policy in question from the due date of second year premium runs under lapsation and after lapse of 2 years the policy contract stood cancelled and complainant is not entitled to any single penny from the OPs.   It has been stated that there is no space for sympathy in the eyes of law for the alleged illness of complainant.  In the end,   prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     To prove his case, complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and affidavit of Dr. Krishan Hooda, BAMS, Hooda Maternity and Nursing Home,  Meham as Ex. PW2/A alongwith Annexure A to Z and Annexure A-1 to Anneuxre A-41 and closed the evidence.

4.                     On the other hand, affidavit Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-5 have been have been filed in evidence of OPs and closed the evidence.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely. Written arguments coupled by case laws filed from both the sides.

6.              At the outset, from pleadings of both the sides and First Premium Receipt of Policy Annexure-I, it has proved on record, that complainant has deposited only one installment of Rs.49,993/-for the policy in question. Ld. counsel for OP has argued that the policy had been lapsed as no premium for second year renewal was paid by complainant. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for OPs has relied upon case law titled M/s Vijay Concerns Vs. State Bank of India & others Revision Petition No.1188 of 2012, decided on 16.09.2013 by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (CLT 2013(4)-590), and a case law titled Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mukesh Kumar, First Appeal No.180 of 2018 decided on 15.03.2019 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.

7.              On the contrary, leaned counsel for complainant has argued that in the given facts and circumstances, the complainant was not in a position to pay for further renewal of the policy and thus complainant before filing of this complaint requested the Ops to refund his deposited amount but the Ops did not pay any heed to his genuine requests which amounts to their negligent services causing him monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. Further, no notice qua lapse of the policy and consequences thereof was ever issued by the OPs to the complainant. To support his case, learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on case law LIC Vs. Smt. Sandeep Devi etc., First Appeal No.1808 of 2007 decided on 13.07.2010 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressasl Commission, Haryana, Panchkula.

8.              From the record, it reveals that complainant has remained ill for a long period after obtaining the insurance policy and due to which, complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment as well as monetary hardship. In such a situation, it may easily assume that complainant would have remained busy qua taking his treatment and that he had no knowledge about the consequences of policy if not further renewed. On the other side, the OP has also not placed on record any document which could show that they had aware the complainant about his policy lapsed and its consequences, in case not renewed for further period. The case law titled LIC Vs. Smt. Sandeep Devi etc. (supra) is much helpful in deciding the present case wherein it has observed that “………If the insurance policy lapse due to non-payment of premium about which assured was not informed of the consequences of non-payment, then the insurer can be held liable to pay assured amount.  There is no evidence on behalf of OPs that the insured was ever informed of the consequences of the lapsing of the policy and everybody is not supposed to know everything. Therefore, the OPs are negligent in their services and liable to pay the sum insured under the policy…”.

9.              For the abovementioned reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there was negligence in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, this complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.49,993/- (Fourty nine thousand nine hundred ninety three) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the actual realization.

(ii)       To pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation  on account of mental agony and physical harassment. 

3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                        In case of default, the Ops shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid all the amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated:28.11.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani. 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-          Sh. Kuldeep Vashist, Advocate for complainant.

             Sh. Ashish Goyal, Advocate for OPs.

 

                        Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint has been allowed. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Dated:28.11.2023.

 

                                    (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                    (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                       Member                           Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

Commission, Bhiwani.