ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service and to return back the premium amount of Rs.25,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant purchased insurance policy "HDFC SL PRO GROWTH Super II” bearing No.21978428 from OP.  On 05.10.2020 he informed OP regarding its intention to withdraw / cancellation of the said policy due to his financial crises through email.  Though he received the acknowledgement on 18.10.2020 and visited the office of the HDFC Life Jayanagar Branch on 09.11.2020 he was not given the amount paid towards premium. Further he requested for deactivation of the policy and to deactiviate his auto debit option again a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from his account towards the policy.  Inspite of contacting the Ops they did not cooperate in respect of cancellation or surrender of policy and they did not pay the amount.  OP has failed to provide the services and hence there is deficiency in service. The complaint filed is within the time prescribed. Though he issued legal notice the same has not been replied /complied and hence the complaint.

3.     Upon service of notice, OPs appeared before the commission and filed its version denying all the allegations made against it in each and every para of the complaint. It has further contended that the complaint filed is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no deficiency in service on its part. The allegations made are all frivolous, baseless, misconceived and liable to be rejected. 

4.     In view of the contractual relationship, the complaint do not fall within purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant is a resident of Ananthpur, Andrapradesh, whereas OP is having its branch at Worli, Mumbai Hence no cause of action has taken place in Bangalore and this commission has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint and on that ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     It is further contended that, the complainant obtained Unit Linked SL Progrowth Super-II policy bearing No.21978428 on 12.11.2019. The complainant was required to pay premium of Rs.25,000/- annually for a period of ten years.  The maturity benefit was designed for a long term savings and in case wanted to surrender, the maturity benefits would vary on the basis of the period. The terms and conditions of the policy was explained to the complainant. The policy holder is well versed and able to understand. On receipt of the policy, complainant failed to exercise his right under option to return contained in the policy which gives the policy holder, the option to return the policy stating the reasons thereof within 15 days of the receipt of the policy in case he is not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy and the details in the proposal form.  In view of this, and as he has not exercised the option to return, he has accepted the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 

6.     It is further contended that, the complainant wanted and intended to withdraw the policy before maturity by expressing his financial crises by writing mail dated 16.10.2020. Hence there is no deficiency in service alleged or proved against it.  OP on the other hand, on 18.10.2020 informed the complainant regarding the terms and conditions of policy surrender and in case the policy is surrendered before the lock-in period of five years, he will be entitle to the total fund value less discounted charges and the policy will moved to “Discontinued Policy Fund” and the balance amount will be paid only after the completion of the lock-in period which is five years. As per clause-6 of the policy, in case of discontinuance in payment of the premium under the policy, and for any withdrawal “The risk cover would cease immediately and unit fund value as on the date of discontinuance charge (as specified in the policy schedule) will be moved with discontinued policy fund and proceeds from the discontinued policy fund will be refunded only on the completion of the lock-in period.”  Clause-7(2) of the policy stipulates surrender of the policy before completion of lock-in period of five years from the policy inception date then the amount would be moved to discontinued policy fund. The amount allocated to the discontinued policy fund with accrued interest will be paid out on the completion of lock-in period of five years.

7.     It is further contended that on 09.11.2020, complainant sought for deactivating ECS mandate, Auto Debit facility to pay the second insurance premium which was due on 12.11.2020.  As per the standard protocol, to deactivate the ECS debit facility, it should be done 30 days prior to the actual date of payment. Hence the premium was debited for the 2^nd year in respect of the policy.  Complainant has failed to show any kind of deficiency on the part of the OP and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

 8.    In order to prove the case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

9.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2 :    In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

10.   On perusing the complaint, the version, documents, evidence filed by the respective parties, it becomes clear that, complainant opted to purchase the insurance policy from OP. Upon perusing the terms and conditions the insurance policy is for a period of 10 years for which, complainant has to pay Rs.25,000/- as annual premium. Clause-7 of the insurance policy provides for surrender of the policy.  Upon surrender of the policy, the complainant has to wait for a period of 5 years i.e. lock-in period to get the whatever premium he/she has paid to the insurance company along with accrued interest less the administrative charges.

11.   In this complaint, the complainant has not made any allegation of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or mis-selling of the insurance policy by misrepresenting the facts.  In view of this, we find no reason to allow the complaint. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE. Further we observe here that the complainant is entitle to the amount whatever she/he paid towards the premium along with accrued rate of interest less the administrative charges after the lock-in period of 5 years from the date of inception of the insurance policy. In view of this we pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 23^rd day of NOVEMBER 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the mail correspondences.

Ex P2: Copy of the customer acknowledgment.

Ex. P3: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex P4: Copy of the Renewal Premium receipt.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: -Nil-

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

-Nil-

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*