Haryana

Kaithal

309/20

Mehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Mehar Singh Rajrana

06 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.309/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 25.09.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:06.10.2023.

Mehar Singh son of Sh. Randhir Singh, resident of Village Nauch, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Dhand Road, Kaithal near Central Bank of India, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
2. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Road Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400011.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Satish Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Mehar Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had taken a policy No.13854557 dt. 21.08.2010 namely HDFC SL Youngster Champion Suvidha for 10 years from the OPs and maturity date of the same was 21.08.2020.  The installment of premium is Rs.15,000/- per year and maturity value is payable as Rs.2,18,581/- and also given a bumper addition of 25% of Original Annualized Premium of 10 years plan on maturity amount benefit.  The case of complainant is that the OPs gave maturity amount of said policy to the complainant on 24.08.2020 to the tune of Rs.2,18,354/- in the account of complainant and did not give benefit of bumper addition of 25% to the complainant of Original Annualized Premium.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.    

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that while forwarding the policy documents containing complete terms and conditions of the policy in question a statutory 15 days “Free Look In Period” was also provided to the complainant to review the policy terms and conditions and if the complainant was in disagreement with any of the terms and conditions of the policy, then the complainant could have returned the policy for a refund of premium; that the amount of Rs.2,18,851/- which has been paid to the complainant included the said bumper addition amount.  The bifurcation of the amount is as under:-

Non-guaranteed benefit assured investment return   Rs.2,14,831/-

25% of original annualized premium                       Rs.3750/-

                                                                __________________

                                                                        Rs.2,18,581/-

                                                                __________________                                                                                         

 There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW/A alongwith documents Annexure-OP1 to Annexure-OP3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had taken a policy No.13854557 dt. 21.08.2010 namely HDFC SL Youngster Champion Suvidha for 10 years from the OPs and maturity date of the same was 21.08.2020.  It is further argued that the installment of premium is Rs.15,000/- per year and maturity value is payable as Rs.2,18,581/- and also given a bumper addition of 25% of Original Annualized Premium of 10 years plan on maturity amount benefit.  It is further argued that the OPs gave maturity amount of said policy to the complainant on 24.08.2020 to the tune of Rs.2,18,354/- in the account of complainant and did not give benefit of bumper addition of 25% to the complainant of Original Annualized Premium.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that while forwarding the policy documents containing complete terms and conditions of the policy in question a statutory 15 days “Free Look In Period” was also provided to the complainant to review the policy terms and conditions and if the complainant was in disagreement with any of the terms and conditions of the policy, then the complainant could have returned the policy for a refund of premium.  It is further argued that the amount of Rs.2,18,851/- which has been paid to the complainant included the said bumper addition amount i.e. Non-guaranteed benefit assured investment return=Rs.2,14,831/- and 25% of original annualized premium=Rs.3750/-. 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken a policy No.13854557 dt. 21.08.2010 from the OPs for the term of 10 years.  The date of commencement of said policy was 21.08.2010 date of maturity was 21.08.2020 and installment of premium was Rs.15,000/- per year.  There is also no dispute that the complainant paid 10 installments on yearly basis and last installment was paid by the complainant on 22.08.2019.  There is also no dispute that the amount of Rs.2,18,354/- was paid by the Ops to the complainant on 24.08.2020.  The dispute between the parties is with regard to bumper addition of 25% Original Annualized Premium.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the terms and conditions of the policy as per Annexure-C1, wherein as per provision 3. Benefits, the relevant portion of which is mentioned as under:-

                “Term                                       Bumper Addition

                10 Years                    25% of Original Annualized Premium”

                So, from the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the complainant is entitled for 25% of original annualized premium.  The complainant has deposited the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as installments of Rs.15,000/- each in 10 years.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for 25% of Rs.1,50,000/- which becomes the amount of Rs.37,500/-, out of which the OPs have paid Rs.3750/- only to the complainant and so, the Ops are liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,750/- to the complainant.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs to pay the balance amount of Rs.33,750/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OPs are further directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as–well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.  

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:06.10.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.