Date of filing : 30/10/2013

Order no. 26

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was advised and persuaded to invest in HDFC Standard Life Insurance for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and the complainant was informed that it was a onetime investment. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant on good faith put his signature on the application form. In Jan. 2011 after going through the documents the complainant came to learn that he will have to pay Rs.3 lakhs annually that too for a period of 10 years in order to get benefit out of it. The complainant paid the 1^st premium since he got arrear of 6^th pay commission and it was not possible for him to pay the premium annually and on the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case by allegation against the o.p. that policy was missold to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant also made allegation against the o.p. before Ld. Ombudsman, Kolkata. Ld. Ombudsman did not entertain the claim of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.10,04,468/- as well as compensation of Rs.3 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

          The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant after understanding and being satisfied with the scheme of HDFC Life Insurance Policy applied for HDFC Savings Assurance Plan. Upon receipt of the said application o.p. issued a HDFC Savings Assurance Plan being policy no.13641672 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.3 lakhs. The o.p. stated that each policy document as per the IRDA guidelines contains an option to return of the policy if the policy holder is not satisfied within its free look period i.e. 15 days. The complainant after availing of the said policy did not opt for the option of return of the policy within its free look period which established the fact that the complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant after availing of the said policy and being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said policy paid 3 annual premiums for 2010, 2011 and 2012, each amounting to Rs.3 lakhs under the said policy. The complainant thereafter made allegation that the missale of the policy which was rejected by o.p. Thereafter the complainant went to Ld. Ombudsman, after hearing of both the parties the prayer of the complainant was also rejected. After being refused to get any relief from any corner the complainant filed this case making false allegation against the o.p. insurance company for which o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

          On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided :

1. Whether the complainant had the policy with o.p.?
2. Whether the complainant exercised the option within the free look period?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

          Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant was advised and persuaded to invest in HDFC Standard Life Insurance for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and the complainant was informed that it was a onetime investment. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant on good faith put his signature on the application form. In Jan. 2011 after going through the documents the complainant came to learn that he will have to pay Rs.3 lakhs annually that too for a period of 10 years in order to get benefit out of it. The complainant paid the 1^st premium since he got arrear of 6^th pay commission and it was not possible for him to pay the premium annually and on the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case by allegation against the o.p. that policy was missold to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant also made allegation against the o.p. before Ld. Ombudsman, Kolkata. Ld. Ombudsman did not entertain the claim of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.10,04,468/- as well as other reliefs.

         Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant after understanding and being satisfied with the scheme of HDFC Life Insurance Policy applied for HDFC Savings Assurance Plan. Upon receipt of the said application o.p. issued a HDFC Savings Assurance Plan being policy no.13641672 in favour of the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.3 lakhs. The o.p. stated that each policy document as per the IRDA guidelines contains an option to return of the policy if the policy holder is not satisfied within its free look period i.e. 15 days. The complainant after availing of the said policy did not opt for the option of return of the policy within its free look period which established the fact that the complainant was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant after availing of the said policy and being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said policy paid 3 annual premiums for 2010, 2011 and 2012, each amounting to Rs.3 lakhs under the said policy. The complainant thereafter made allegation that the missale of the policy which was rejected by o.p. Thereafter the complainant went to Ld. Ombudsman, after hearing of both the parties the prayer of the complainant was also rejected. After being refused to get any relief from any corner the complainant filed this case making false allegation against the o.p. insurance company for which o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant being a railway employee and also an educated person and after going through the terms and conditions of the policy he applied for the said policy. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant paid 3 annual premiums subsequently. The o.p. at the time of providing the policy the terms and conditions of the policy were also provided. One of the conditions was that in case of the complainant had any grievance regarding the said policy he could have exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. But the complainant did not exercise the option within the free look period. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant paid the premium for consecutive 3 years. If the complainant would have been dissatisfied and if he would have been misled by the agent of o.p. he would not have paid subsequent two other premiums. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant after the lapse of 3 years while raised objection regarding the issuance of the said policy the insurance company rightly rejected the contention of the complainant that since he failed to exercise his option within free look period, the prayer of the complainant was accordingly rejected. In view of such background of the case the complainant by making false allegation against the o.p. filed this case which has got no substantive material to be entertained by us. Accordingly, we hold that the case filed by the complainant is devoid of any merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            that the case no. CC/642/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.