Delhi

East Delhi

CC/190/2016

SUMAN DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

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

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.       190/2016

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               06/05/2016

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               07/01/2019        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       09/01/2019                                                                                

In matter of—

Smt Suman Gupta, Adult,

w/o- Late Mr Vikas Gupta

                     &

2-Ms Yamini Gupta, 13 yrs- daughter

3-Ms Mahek Gupta, 10 yrs- daughter

4-Mst. Hardik Gupta, 2 yrs-son

(co-complainant 2,3&4 minor through mother-complainant)

R/o- A-331/67, Gali no. 7

Rajgarh Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031…...………………………….Complainants

 

                                                                    Vs

1- The Manager/Director,

HDFC Life Insurance Ltd.  

Regd. Office- 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus,

Apollo Mills Compound, N M Joshi Marg

Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011

 

2- The Manager

HDFC Life Insurance Ltd.  

Plot no. 19, Sagar Plaza,

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…………….…………..…………Opponents  

 

Complainant’s Advocate- Mr Rahul Kumar Verma

Opponent’s Advocate-      Mr Rajiv Aneja

 

Quorum    Sh Sukhdev Singh          President

                   Dr P N Tiwari                  Member

                   Mrs Harpreet Kaur        Member

                 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member-

 

Brief -This complainant has been filed u/s 12 of C P Act, 1986 against OP for alleged deficiency in services for rejecting death claim under policy terms and conditions.   

Facts of the case –

Husband of complainant Late Mr Vikas Gupta took HDFC Life Uday Insurance policy from OP2 after paying premium amount Rs 3105/-through cheque (Ex CW1/1 &2) which was cleared on 31/08/2015. OP informed complainant for complete verification process for issuing the policy bond (Ex CW1/8) and the same was done also, but policy bond was not issued. Unfortunately complainant’s husband died in a road traffic accident on 02/11/2015 and FIR was registered (Ex CW1/4). Police completed their process of MLC and post mortem (Ex CW1/4A,5&6) and got death certificate from the State Govt on 17/12/2015 (Ex CW1/6). When no policy bond was received, complainant sent legal notice on 25/01/2016 (Ex CW1/7), but OP through their letter dated 25/01/2016 returned premium amount through NEFT and the same was credited in complainant’s account with interest. The complainant’s nominee as wife in the said life policy filed this complaint claimed policy benefits under death claim with 18% from 02/11/2015 and compensation Rs 25,000/- for mental harassment and litigation charges Rs 10,000/-.  

It was stated by complainant that due to wrong noting of date of hearing before the Forum, complaint was dismissed in default, so complainant through an order of Hon State Commission dated 26/10/2016 (Ex CW1/8), complaint was restored and was taken before the Forum (Ex CW1/9).   

OP2 submitted joint written statement for OP1 denying all the allegations of the complainant as wrong and incorrect. It was submitted that deceased husband of complainant (Late Mr Vikas Gupta) had applied for HDFC Life Uday Policy from OP2 on 28/08/2015 for sum assured maturity amount Rs 69784/-with annual premium of Rs 3105/. He filled policy proposal form on 29/08/2015 (Ex OP2W1/1to10). Before issuing policy bond, complainant had to complete verification process and for that OP2 had written letter dated 31/08/2015 which was not completed till 25/01/2016, so OP returned the premium amount with interest Rs 3338/-in the bank account through NEFT as opted by him and the same was credited.

 

It was also stated that deceased husband was never insured with OP as no policy bond was ever issued so there was no privity of contract between OP and deceased hence this complaint was not maintainable. Complainant never approached OP after submitting policy proposal form and as no verification process was completed till 15/01/2016, refund of premium amount with interest was initiated. It was admitted that the said legal notice was received in the office of OP on 28/01/2016.

Complainant submitted rejoinder to written statement of OP2 and denied all the replies submitted by OP2. It was stated that the premium amount cheque was accepted and en-cashed also. All processes of verifications were completed in time, but OP did not issue the policy bond. After receiving intimation of death claim, premium amount was returned. Complainant also submitted evidences on affidavit of herself (as nominee) and affirmed on oath and relied on premium cheque amount (Ex CW1/1 &2), FIR (Ex CW1/4,5&6), legal notice (Ex CW1/7) sent to OP. So all her evidences were true and correct and she was fully entitled for the sum assured amount of the said policy of her deceased husband with death benefits.

 

OP submitted evidence on affidavit through their Associate Legal Manager Mr Ankush Saini, working with OP2, submitted a Letter of Authority (Ex OP2W1/1A) and a copy of policy proposal form (Ex OP2W1/2 (Colly) and intimation letter for completion of verification process which deceased complainant failed to get completed. As in absence of valid contract, no liability could be labeled on OP. So, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

OP also submitted written arguments with reference from Supreme Court as LIC of India vs Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba & others, AIR 1984 in Cano. 2197/1970 decided on 27/03/1984 where it was laid down that ‘Acceptance is complete only when it is communicated to the offeror. Silence or receipt and retention of premium cannot be construed as acceptance’. The contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making offer.  

 

Arguments were heard from both the counsels and after perusal of file, order was reserved.

After scrutinizing all the facts and evidences on record, it is to be seen whether complainant was entitled for death claim?

We have gone through the detailed  facts and evidences of complainant and OP from where it was clearly evident that verification process was not completed by the deceased and there was no evidence on record from complainant to establish that  her claim of death was denied wrongly by OP.

Thus, we are of the opinion after going through all the facts pertaining to this death claim that this complaint has no merit and OP had rightly refunded premium amount with interest in the account of deceased much before receiving intimation of death. In absence of valid contract between OP and deceased & non compliance of variation from OP,  so no liability can be fixed on OP1 and 2. That being so this complaint deserves to be dismissed without any order to cost.  

First free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Regulation 20 (1) of the Act.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari   Member                                                                        Mrs Harpreetr Kaur Member                                                                

 

                                                         Sukhdev Singh - President