Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/423/2014

Iqbal Singh Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

G.D.Gupta

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.423 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 07.10.2014

                                                                                    Date of decision:03.10.2016

 

Iqbal Singh Bhatia aged about 68 years son of Sh. Lakha Singh resident of H. No. 1762, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri.

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. H.D.F.C Insurance Company Ltd. 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, ApoloMills compound, NM Joshi Marg, Malaluxmi, Mumbai -400011.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Ground Floor, SCO 139-140, Sector-9C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160017.  
3. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. First Floor, Plot No.1/75, Opposite Meena Bazar, Near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar 135001 (Hr.). 

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. G.D.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

              Sh. M.L.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Iqbal Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 10003355 from the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17.02.2004 for a period of 10 years and the complainant was to pay annual premium of Rs. 10,000/- which was paid by the complainant regularly. Before the maturity period i.e. 17.02.2014, the complainant visited the office of the OP No.3 and enquired as to what formalities he was to complete to get the maturity payment against the policy in question but the dealing hand of the OPs Insurance Company intimated to the complainant that he will receive a letter bearing all details and procedures. The complainant could get the letter regarding ante date of November 21, 2013 on February 18, 2014 and he immediately went to the office of Op No.3 to file his maturity claim against the insurance policy in question. In this way, the OPs Insurance Company had played a trick by putting the date November 21,2013 on the letter in question but actually posted the same for delivery on 18.02.2014 i.e. after the maturity period of the policy in question just to retain the maturity amount of the complainant and converted the insurance policy in question into annuity plan. Whereas the complainant is in the fag-end of his life and is suffering from various ailment and he immediately needs the payment of his major claim of his medical treatment and delay on the part of the Op Insurance Company is aggravating his problems. A legal notice was also given to release the majority amount alongwith all benefits in respect of policy in question but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has not disclosed the true, correct and complete fact of the matter in question; this Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable as the complainant opted the pension plan and policy duly received by the complainant as well as contract of the insurance signed by the complainant. It is very clear that in para No.3 titled as ”Benefits” that if you pay the premium that are due, we will pay the following benefits to you or to any other person who is entitled to receive them.

1. Upon survival of the Life Assured to the vesting date of the policy, the Unitised Fund Value becomes available to secure pension benefits, Subject to the prevailing regulations, part of this value can be taken in the form of a cash lump sum and the rest converted to an annuity at the rate then offered by HDFC Standard Life. Alternatively, if it is permitted by the prevailing regulations, the proceeds net of any cash lump sum can be used to buy an annuity with any other insurance company who will accept such business. The current maximum limit for any cash lump sum is one third of the Unitised Fund Value on vesting Upon this payment the policy terminates and no further benefit becomes payable.
2. Upon death of the Life Assured before the expiry date, the Unitised Fund Value and the Sum Assured before the expiry date, the Unitised Fund Value and the Sum Assured stated against “Death Benefit” in the policy schedule, becomes payable. Upon this payment the Policy terminates and no further benefit becomes payable.

But the complainant is demanding the full maturity amount which is not applicable on the said insurance plan and as per terms and conditions such complaint is pension plan, but plea of the complainant is contrary to the above mentioned condition of the policy. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and on merit it is not denied that complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 10003355 on 17.02.2004 for 10 years with the maturity date of 17.02.2014. However, rest contents of the complaint have been denied. It has been further mentioned that the policy holder was having sufficient 15 days period from the receipt of the said policy to return the same to the company, if the policy holder was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy but in the present case, the policy holder never opted the said option to return the said policy within time and it means the policy holder was fully satisfied with the said policy and controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4.                     In support of complaint, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Unit Link Pension policy schedule as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Annuity options letter dated 21.11.2013 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of courier envelope as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of docket as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of legal notice dated 26.05.2014 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter dated 02.05.2014 as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Khanna, Associate Manager Legal, HDFC Life Insurance as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of renewal premium receipts as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     It is not disputed that the complainant obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 10003355 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 17.02.2004 with its maturity date dated 17.02.2014 from the Ops Insurance Company and paid yearly installments of Rs. 10,000/- each to the Ops Insurance Company which is duly evident from the copy of receipts containing 9 pages as Annexure R-2. The only plea of the Ops Insurance Company is that policy taken by the complainant was unit link pension plan and in such plan complainant has to approach to the company before the maturity date but the complainant did not approach to the company and complainant is also aware about the said plan as duly mentioned in the policy received by him. Further, the complainant was aware about that full maturity amount cannot be claimed in such pension plan only 1/3^rd amount of the fund value can be taken but as the complainant did not approach to the Ops Insurance Company in time so, the entire maturity amount was vested in the pension plan by the Ops Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that policy purchased by the complainant was unit link plan, so the same is not covered under Consumer Protection Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and referred the case law titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Versus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued at length that before the maturity period i.e. 17.02.2014 the complainant visited the office of the OP No.3 and enquired about the formalities which were to be completed to get the maturity payment against the policy in question and official of the OP No.3 told to him that they will send the letter to him on its maturity by mentioning all the formalities which were to be completed by the complainant and since then he was in waiting to that letter but the Ops had played a trick with the complainant by putting the date 21.11.2013 on the letter (Annexure C-2) but actually posted the same for delivery on 18.02.2014 after the maturity period of policy in question which is duly evident from the receipt of courier (Annexure C-3 and C-4) Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the legal notice (Annexure C-5) and argued that despite so many oral as well as written requests the Ops insurance Company has wrongly withheld the maturity amount alongwith all other benefits of the policy in question and vested the entire amount in the pension plan without the consent and approval of the complainant whereas the complainant is suffering from so many ailments and he is in dire need of payments of maturity claim amount for his medical treatment.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as from the perusal of insurance policy in question it is duly evident that policy in question matured on 17.02.2014 and maturity amount of the policy in question was not paid to the complainant. The version of the complainant seems to be genuine that the official of the Ops had played a trick with the complainant by posting the letter dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure C-2) on 17.08.2014 which was delivered to the complainant on 18.02.2014 which is duly evident from the Annexure C-3 and C-4 in which the complainant was offered for investing the full maturity amount in annuity plan UIN-101N 084B01). From the contents of this letter, it is duly evident that complainant never opted for further investment the maturity amount in the annuity plan of the Ops Insurance Company otherwise there was no need to send this letter to the complainant. Further the version of the complainant is also duly proved from the legal notice dated 26.05.2014 issued to the Ops Insurance Company for releasing the maturity payment of the policy in question. From the other angle also, if we presume that complainant never approached to the Ops prior to the maturity of policy in question i.e. prior to 17.02.2014 even then the Ops Insurance Company was not having any authority, without approval of the complainant, to invest the maturity amount in the annuity plan. Furthermore, the insurance company has also failed to convince this forum that whether the maturity amount of the policy in question had been actually invested in the annuity plans as no such insurance policy has ever been delivered to the complainant or has been placed on file. However, insurance company has tendered some schedule of the insurance policy as Annexure R-1 but going through these documents, it seems that these papers are for the previous policy which was issued on 17.02.2004 with its maturity on 17.02.2014. From the perusal of the letter dated 01.05.2015 issued by the Ops Insurance Company to the complainant, it is also evident that the complainant has not submitted any filled annuity plan application form to the Ops Insurance Company to invest the maturity amount of the previous policy, as the Ops Insurance Company has mentioned in the opening line of this letter that “ your policy has matured on 17.02.2014 with your vesting proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,45,731.19. We wish to inform you that we are yet to receive the duly filled annuity application form for the disbursement of your annuity income”. Meaning thereby that complainant never asked the Ops Insurance Company to invest the maturity payment of the policy in question in further annuity/ pension plan. As the Ops Insurance Company has not released the maturity payment alongwith all other benefits, if any, of the policy in question despite the request of the complainant, so, we are of the considered view that the Ops Insurance Company has illegally and wrongly withheld the maturity payment as on 17.02.2014 alongwith other benefits of the policy in question, if any, which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The law referred by the counsel for the OPs is not disputed but not helpful in the present case as the OPs Insurance Company had withheld the maturity amount of the Policy in question.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops Insurance Company to release the entire maturity payment of policy bearing No. 10003355  alongwith all the benefits which were available under that policy to the complainant as on its maturity date i.e. 17.02.2014 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 17.02.2014 till its realization and further to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 03.10.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                       

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER.