Haryana

Karnal

303/2014

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal S/o Shanti Sawroop - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIfe Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Vikash Yadav

23 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No. 303 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 7.11.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 23.05.2017

 

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal son of late Shri Shanti Sawroop, resident of House no.3, Duggal Colony, Karnal, Haryana (132001).

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

                                                         Versus

 

1. HDFC Life through its Manager Address at 1^st floor, HDFC Bank, Kunjpura Road, Karnal-132001.

2. HDFC Life through Chief Manager Address at: 12^th & 13^th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011, Maharashtra.

 

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani……. Member

                   Sh. Anil Sharma………Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri Vikash Yadav Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Bakshi Advocate for opposite parties.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that the Manager of opposite party no.1 sold policy no.16308820 to him in the year 2013 by representing that the amount paid by him under the policy would be converted into fixed deposit for one year and that thereafter he would be entitled to get the entire invested amount as tax free proceed alongwith interest. However, on receipt of the policy, he came to know that the policy was not as per the representation made to him. Therefore, on 23.10.2013 he served a written complaint for cancellation of the policy to respondent no.1 within 30 days of the date of the policy, intimating that policy was fraudulent transaction and the same be cancelled forthwith. The communication was duly received by opposite party no.1. He had been regularly following up the issue with the opposite party no.1 by personal visits, but the opposite party no.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he served legal notice dated 21.1.2014 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Such act and conduct of the opposite parties amounted to gross deficiency in service, which caused him mental agony, harassment and humiliation apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided by this Forum under summary jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to the complaint; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant himself approached the officials of the opposite parties and accordingly the policy was issued. When the complainant was not satisfied with the policy he had every right to seek cancellation of the policy within freelook period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Complainant availed the said cancellation of the policy in freelook period, vide letter dated 23.10.2013. The opposite parties replied the said letter, vide letter dated 31.10.2013 and the complainant was required to submit confirmation letter alongwith original policy document submit, NEFT form and a cancelled cheque, but the formalities were not complied with by the complainant, therefore, he is estopped by his own acts and conduct. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C5 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of  Amit Khanna Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, opposite parties issued policy no.16308820 in favour of the complainant in the year 2013 and the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said policy, therefore, he sent letter dated 23.10.2013 to opposite party no.1 for cancellation of the policy. As per the case of the complainant, the opposite parties have not cancelled the policy and refunded the premium amount deposited by him despite his requests and registered legal notice. On the other hand, opposite parties have submitted that letter dated 31.10.2013 was sent to the complainant asking him to comply with certain formalities i.e. to submit confirmation letter alongwith original policy document apart from submitting  NEFT form and a cancelled check, but he did comply with the said letter. However, the complainant has denied about receiving any such letter of the opposite parties.

7.                Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the opposite parties had sent the letter dated 31.10.2013 to the complainant and the same was received by him. It is important to point out that the opposite parties have not clarified in the written statement or the affidavit of Amit Khanna Ex.OP1/A regarding the mode of sending the letter dated 31.10.2013 to the complainant, whether the said letter was sent through ordinary post, registered post, speed post or courier. Even, no record regarding dispatch of the letter has been produced. The dispatch register could be the best evidence in this regard, but the same has been withheld for the reasons best known to the opposite parties. In the absence of any documentary evidence, mere pleadings of the opposite parties and the affidavit of their legal manager cannot be taken to be the gospel truth and the same are not sufficient to prove that the letter dated 31.10.2013 was sent to the complainant and the same was received by him. Therefore, the plea raised by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. In such a situation, the complainant could not comply with the requirements mentioned in the said letter.

8.                After receiving the cancellation letter dated 23.10.2013 from the complainant, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to take necessary steps for cancellation of the policy and refund the amount of premium deposited by the complainant. However, opposite parties have failed to prove that any positive step was taken by them after receipt of the said letter for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. In this way, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Consequently, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by him as installment premium.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 23.10.2013 till its realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 23.05.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                              ( Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                               Member                  Member