Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1174/2014

KAUSHIK DUTTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi

          CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.      1174/2014

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               24/12/2014

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               07/03/2017                                

                                                                                                   Date of order                        08/03/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Kaushik Dutta, adult   

R/o- D-11B, Ganesh Nagar

Shakarpur, Delhi-110092………………………………..…………….Complainant

                                                                    

                                                                           Vs

1- The HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

101-102, First Floor, Aditya Complex

Hargovind Enclave, Delhi 110092

 

2-The Manager

HFC Bank, Sandoz House,

2^nd Floor, Shiv Sagar Estate,

Annie Basant Road,

Worli, Mumbai

 

3-The Managing Director,

The HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

11^th Floor, Lodha Excellus

Apollo mill compound, N M Joshi Road

Mahalaxmi , Mumbai 400011….. ………………..………………..Opponents

 

 

Quorum                     Sh Sukhdev  Singh     President

                                    Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                    Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member   

                                                                                               

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member   

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

 

The complainant had saving bank account with OP since long. The agent of OP offered single premium policy under the name of HDFL SL Pro growth Super II policy for 10 years having its premium Rs 40,000/-which was accepted and OP issued policy having no. 15884665 vide annexure I and II.  After one year, OP informed for paying the second premium for the policy, but complainant did not pay second premium as it was assured for a single premium policy for 10 years. So after discussion with OP1, sent a letter dated 06/09/2014 for his grievances. Thereafter, complainant received letter from OP dated 08/09/2014 assuring for suitable reply. Complainant received another email from OP giving IRDA circular with guidelines for payments through NEFT and asked complainant to submit all the required documents at nearest OP office and if complainant did not receive the result, may contact their head office at Mumbai.

 

Complainant sent documents to all OPs through courier accordingly. On 21/11/2014, complainant received letter from head office regretting to consider his request to refund stating that he could not avail the “Free look” period of 30 days for not continuing the policy or refund of premium amount, hence neither the amount could be refunded nor his policy be cancelled. So he filed this complaint claiming refund of his amount paid for premium Rs 40,000/-with compensation Rs 20,000/-for mental agony and harassment suffered with Rs 1000/- as litigation cost.  

 

After receiving the notices, joint written statement was filed taking shelter of RP 4463/2014 / NC where OP stated that their denial to refund the premium and or continue the policy was as per the law laid down in the said revision petition of Honble National Commission. OP stated that the complainant failed to avail the opportunity given under the said policy of Free Look period of 30 days for discontinuing the policy. Also he did not raise any objection in one year of period. OP further stated that the detail policy proposal form was filled by the complainant himself and had put his signatures also.

 

OP also submitted law laid down in “Grasim Industries vs Agarwal Steel, CA 5994/2009(SC) where it was stated that only where any fraud, misrepresentation or force was seen the policy could be terminated; otherwise not when complainant had put his signatures on it. OP submitted that the complainant had put his signatures after being satisfied by all the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant had to continue the policy for 5 years as a locking period for availing benefits of the policy.

 

The complainant did not submit his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit nor submitted any relevant citations applicable to his case. OP submitted their evidences on affidavit through Sh Akash Singh, Associate Manager Legal having their office at New Delhi. He stated on affidavit that refusal to refund was justified as per the terms and conditions of the policy which were on the record. Also the complainant did not approach OP for any difficulty in his policy in one year tenure. OP submitted detail of terms and conditions of policy with a copy of policy proposal form showing complainant’s signatures.

 

Arguments were heard from complainant and OP through their counsel in detail. Order was reserved.  

After hearing arguments, scrutinizing all the facts and evidences submitted before us, it is necessary to see the relevance of evidences on record. The evidence pertaining to the policy details including policy proposal form and two citations as

 

  

i-“Grasim Industries Ltd and others vs M/s Agarwal Steel, CA 5994/2004(SC) where it was laid down that “when a signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

 

ii- In revision petition 4463/2014(NC) ‘Gurender Kaur vs HDFC Standard life Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, it was laid down that if petitioner has failed to exercise the option for cancellation of his policy within free look period of 15 days, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Co. in declining to accede to the prayer for foreclosure of the policy.  

 

We have scrutinized all the evidences before us. It has been seen that documents of policy and policy proposal form, submitted by OP, are readable only through magnifying glasses/lenses by us then how a common person can read each and every letter of the documents.

 

We have also gone in depth to see if any saving account of complainant existed with OP1, but there was no evidence on record to show the details of saving account of complainant. Thus we are not accepting complainant’s contention of having any saving bank account with OP1.

 

As far as policy is concerned, it was a Unit linked policy of OP. There was no evidence of reminder from OP pertaining to submit second premium. Thus OP had kept sum of Rs 40,000/- as paid in first premium by complainant which could have been refunded after deducting service tax if paid and existing Unit values when complainant did not pay the second premium. But OP stated their act of rejection was justified based on apex court judgments submitted on record.   

 

Laws laid down in revision petition 4463/2014 (NC) as Gurender Kaur vs HDFC standard Life Insurance Co. apply here as complainant did not opt provision of Free Look period of 30 days, hence it cannot be said deficiency of OP. Here in this case also, complainant did not avail provision of free look period or contacted OP in one year of policy tenure, but correspondence were done after his second premium date lapsed where complainant was in a managerial post working with office.

 

The citation of Honble Supreme Court is concerned in “Grasim Industries Ltd and others vs M/s Agarwal Steel”, CA 5994/2004 (SC), it was laid down that once a person has signed policy proposal form and had put his sign, cannot be accepted that he had not read and understood entire document properly. Only in case of fraud or force, policy can be cancelled. In this case, neither fraud nor force was seen nor it can be believed that policy proposal form was filled by him.    

 

It is also pertinent to mention that the conduct of OP in reference to above cited citations cannot be said having deficiency in their services.

So, refunding the premium amount, after one year cannot be un justified when OPs services were not of deficient.  

 

Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any cost.  

 

The order copy be sent to the parties as per act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

 

 (Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member                                            

                                      

                                         

                                                     Mr Sukhdev Singh - President