Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/14/2020

Gurwinder Singh Virk - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Devinder Kumar

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/14/2020
Date of Institution	:	07/01/2020
Date of Decision	:	23/10/2024

 

Gurwinder Singh Virk son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh r/o Village Karimpura, P.O. Nogawan, Tehsil : Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                ...  Complainant

V E R S U S

HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 149-151, Sector 43-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:
	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	Ms. Monika Thatai, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OP

       

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that, on being allured by the agent of the OP of getting handsome benefit after three years on investing the amount in their insurance policy, he agreed to purchase the same. As per the policy document issued on 28.2.2024 (Annexure C-1), complainant had to pay ₹30,000/- per annum. The complainant deposited five yearly installments of ₹30,000/- i.e. ₹1,50,000/- with the OP.  After five years complainant approached the OP for refund of the invested amount alongwith benefits and submitted all the requisite documents.  However, instead of paying the invested amount alongwith benefit/interest, OP only transferred an amount of ₹1,51,164.65 in the account of the complainant and did not even provide any statement of account. Under constrained circumstances, complainant sent legal notice dated 20.10.2019 to the OP but with no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking payment of the balance amount alongwith benefits/interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2.        In its written version OP admitted the factual matrix.  It is averred that the policy in question was issued to the complainant on the basis of online proposal/ application by him.  The policy term and premium paying term was 10 years, the annual premium was ₹30,000/- and the lock in period was to expire on 25.2.2019 i.e. five years and not three years. It is further averred that on 26.2.2019, the life assured had submitted written request to surrender his policy as lock in period of five years was completed.  Accordingly, OP processed the said request and credited the amount of ₹1,51,164/- (total surrender value) in the account of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy.  Since the policy was a unit linked plan, therefore, the surrender value was according to the prevailing market price.  The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own.
4.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including written arguments.
6.        It is observed from the record that admittedly the complainant had surrendered the policy in question, which was issued on 25.2.2014, with the OP in the year 2019 and he had also received the surrender value of ₹1,51,164.65 from the OP on 25.3.2019.
7.        The case of the complainant is that the OP was also liable to pay interest/other benefits upon surrender of the policy whereas the defence of the OP is that since the policy in question was a unit linked policy and the same was surrendered before its maturity, the total surrender value on the date of surrender was credited in the account of the complainant.
8.        Perusal of the policy schedule (Annexure C-1) clearly reveals that the same was issued on 25.2.2014 with policy term/premium paying term of 10 years.  Admittedly the complainant had surrendered the policy after five years and as per terms & conditions of the policy, he could have been entitled to the benefits under the policy only upon its maturity i.e. after 10 years and not prior to that.  As such, the complainant was only entitled to get the surrender value of the units, being a unit linked policy, which has admittedly been paid to him, and not other benefits.  Here we are fortified by the order of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sudhi P.P. & Anr., I (2014) CPJ 326 (NC) in which it was held as under :-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) — Insurance (Life) — Unit Linked Policy — Surrender value — No increase in deposited amount — Misrepresentation by agent alleged — Alleged deficiency in service — District Forum dismissed complaint — State Commission allowed appeal — Hence revision — Market plus plan being a Unit Linked Policy is subject to market variation — Terms and conditions of policy are quite elaborate and specific — Risk under the policy is borne by life assured — Complainant has surrendered policy much prior to maturity date — Surrender value payable will be fixed value of units held in policy holders account at date of surrender — District Forum rightly held that Insurance Company has paid whatever amount complainant is entitled to — Finding of State Commission is based on lack of information on the subject — Order of District Forum restored”

9.        Not only this, when the complainant admittedly had received the policy document, clearly mentioning the policy term/premium paying term as 10 years, and he did not dispute the same during the free look period provided under the policy or even anytime thereafter, it does not lie in his mouth to raise any grievance with regard to its terms and conditions at a later date through the present consumer complaint. 
10.        In view of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio of law laid down in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the present consumer complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Resultantly, the present consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
12.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

ANNOUNCED 23/10/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA] MEMBER