Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/932/2021

Chanderhas Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Arihant Goyal

08 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/932/2021
Date of Institution	:	23/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	08/02/2024

 

Chanderhas Gupta S/o Late Sh.Yash Pal Gupta, R/o J-150 Army Flats Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula-134114.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 12^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 through its Managing Director.
2. Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 149-151, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Arihant Goyal, Advocate for Complainant (through VC).
	:	Ms.Monika Thatai, alongwith Ms.Shruti Sharma, Advocates for OPs.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased a Life Insurance policy from OPs and the policy was commenced in year 2011. It is further submitted that the actual date of commencement of policy was 22.06.2011 and the term of the policy was of 10 Years (Annexure C-1). The premium of the policy was to be paid for a period of 5 years and the premium amount of the policy was Rs.1,00,000/- and the assured amount was Rs.4,94,187/- It is further submitted that the OPs provided the Schedule of Benefits also in the policy and as per the Schedule of Benefits the amount of Rs. 4,94,187/- was to be paid either on the death of the assured or on the survival of the life assured the vesting benefit of Rs.4,94,187/- plus any attaching reversionary bonus plus interim and terminal bonus was promised to be paid to the assured i.e., to the present complainant. As per terms and conditions of the policy the minimum reversionary bonus rate guaranteed by the company was 3% per annum and terminal bonus was also promised to be added in the policy in case of the applicability. The policy was matured on 22.06.2021 and the complainant received an email dated 5.7.2021 from the OPs (Annexure C-2). The complainant received another mail dated 17.07.2021 from the OPs vide which the OPs have disclosed the vesting maturity amount which comes to Rs.806764/- and the complainant was asked to provide the option to either withdraw maximum 1/3rd of the maturity benefit amount as a tax-free lump sum amount and to convert the rest of the amount to annuity or to utilize the entire proceeds to purchase annuity (Annexure C-3). On 30.09.2021 the OPs sent an email to the complainant in response to the concerns raised by the complainant and the OPs refused to refund the entire amount to the complainant by citing that the policyholder does not have the option to withdraw the complete notional value (Annexure C-4). On 22.11.2021 the complainant sent an email to the OPs by narrating the entire factual position. It is also stated that the complainant has specifically stated in the mail dated 29.11.2021 that the signatures of the complainant has been forged on "One place and on the most important document and this action of the OPs squarely falls within the definition of “Unfair Contract” as provided under Section 2(46) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Annexure C-5). Neither the OPs have considered the requests submitted by the complainant to the OPs time and again and nor followed the contents of the policy in its letter and spirit as the policy specifically provides that on maturity of the policy, the policy holder is entitled to the vesting benefits along with the promised reversionary bonus rate. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that vide letter dated 30.09.2020, the complainant was informed that his policy will mature on 22.06.2021 and as per the current regulations, he will have to choose one option with regard to his vesting amount. Then again, a letter dated 17.07.2021 was dispatched to the complainant at his mailing address clearly informing the complainant that his HDFC Life Classic Pension Plan has matured on 22.06.2021. He was intimated that the vesting amount is Rs.8,06,764/- and as per the current regulations, the proceeds from vesting must be paid out in either of the following ways:

        • You can avail the option of withdrawing maximum upto 1/3rd of the maturity benefit amount as a tax fee lump sum amount and have the rest of the amount covered to annuity; or

        •You can utilize the entire proceeds to purchase annuity.

         The complainant received the above letter but he did not exercise any of the option provided in the said letter. But sine, no steps were taken by the complainant in terms of the said letter and in terms of the policy documents therefore, now after the date of vesting/maturity only annuity benefits are available to the complainant. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.        

3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have failed to pay the maturity amount of the life insurance policy, which matured on 22.06.2021.
7.     We have perused the proposal form dated 21.06.2011, which is an annexed as Annexure OP-2. It is observed that the complainant had applied for classic pension insurance with a premium amount payable as Rs.1 lakh and with a premium pay term of five years. The term of the said classic pension insurance policy is mentioned as 10 years.
8.     On perusal of Annexure OP-3, which is duly signed by the complainant himself, it is observed that the complainant had opted for classic pension insurance. On perusal of Annexure OP-4, it is observed that based on the request/proposal form, the complainant was issued a classic pension insurance plan.
9.     Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view, that the complainant himself had applied for the pension insurance policy and accordingly he was issued a pension insurance policy. Moreover, it is observed that the complainant was also intimated about exercising option of pension annuity plans, but he has failed to exercise the same.
10.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
08/02/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member