Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/11

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. V.K.Soni,Adv

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Manjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to him,

 

ii)      To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony, financial loss, inconvenience

suffered by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.,

 

iii)     To pay interest @ 18% P.A. on the above said amounts from the date of purchase of the policy in question,

 

iv)     To pay special cost of Rs.10,000/-

 

                                      OR

 

To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the first week of March, 2014, the O.P. No. 2 had come to his house and told him that he is working in the office of the  HDFC Life Insurance Company, Railway Road, Nangal. He further told him that the HDFC Life Insurance Company was having very good plan for the children and explained him about some educational policies of the HDFC Bank. The O.P. No. 2 had told him that he had to invest Rs.50,000/- every year under the said plan and also assured that it was a very good plan. Accordingly, he had shown his interest for taking one educational policy and delivered a cheque of Rs.50,000/- and also another blank cheque to the O.P. No.2 for the said plan. The O.P. No. 2 assured him that he would get the policy in question, within 15 days. The above said cheque of Rs.50,000/- was got encashed and the amount to that extent was deducted from his account. Even after elapse of one month’s period, he had not received the policy in question, for which he had invested the money, as such, he enquired about the same from the O.P. No. 2, but he put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 29.05.2014, he moved an application to the Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company, Nawan Shahr regarding the above said incident, but even then the policy was not delivered to him. He doubts about the honesty of the O.P. No. 2 and doubts that the said O.P. had not invested the above said amount paid by him in any HDFC Life Insurance Plan. Even if, the O.P. No. 2 had invested the money in any plan, in that case also, the O.Ps. are responsible for not giving him the details of the policy and for causing him unnecessary mental as well as physical harassment. It is further stated that he is an handicapped person and due to the above said act of the O.Ps., he has suffered huge inconvenience and financial loss for travelling here & there. Now he does not want to continue with the policy, the details of which are not known to him. He had also served a legal notice dated 16.7.2014 upon the O.Ps., but inspite of that, nothing has been done by the O.Ps.. Even no reply was given by them. The above said act of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, the O.P. No.3 filed written version in the form of affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Associate Manager (Legal & Compliance), taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has filed a false & frivolous complaint with the malafide intention of abusing the process of law; that the complaint being vexatious in nature deserved dismissal; that the complaint is nothing, but a suit for declaration in disguise; that the complainant has challenged the validity of the contract of insurance on the ground of so called fraud and he wants to get the insurance policy in question declared as void by this Forum, and the said relief is beyond the scope of this Forum; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try & decide the instant complaint; that the intricate questions of law & facts involved in this case, require documents & evidence for determination of the same, which is not possible in the summary proceedings under the Act and the appropriate remedy, if any, lies only with the civil court and that if the complainant was not satisfied with the plan in question, he had every right to seek cancellation of the said policy within the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. On merits, it is stated that that the complainant himself had approached the officials of the answering O.P. and showed his interest for taking the insurance policy. Before taking his signatures on the proposal form, the official of the answering O.P. had explained him the features of the insurance policy and it was thereafter, that he became ready to take the same & signed the proposal form. No assurance was ever given by the official of the answering O.P. to him regarding single premium policy. His version to that effect is an afterthought and a concocted story made out by him to harass the answering O.P. It is admitted that the complainant had paid the first installment of premium through cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and it is stated that HDFC Super Income Plan policy bearing No. 16706734 dated 08.04.2014 was issued to him, which had commenced w.e.f. 16.03.2014 and the same was sent to him, but he had not returned/surrendered the same within 15 days free look period. The next premium due was on 05.03.2015. It is further stated that the complainant had made a request vide letter dated 29.5.2014 through the Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company, Nawanshahar for cancellation of the policy. The matter was processed and vide letter dated 02.06.2014, his request for cancellation of the policy was considered and accepted and he was asked supply—(i) NEFT Mandate, (ii) Original cancelled cheque, (iii) Advance Discharge Voucher, (iv) Copy of ID proof and (v) Copy of address proof, to the answering O.P., but he did not supply the said documents. In case, he fulfills the above said formalities, the answering O.P. will take step to make the refund of the premium amount received by it. All the other allegations leveled in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof against the answering O.P. with costs.

 

4.                The O.P. No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.03.2015, whereas the complaint filed against the O.P. No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2015.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the  complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant and photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 3 tendered the affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Associate Manager (Legal & Compliance), Ex. OP-3/A, photocopy of policy Ex. OP3/B and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the contesting O.P. No. 3 and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 submitted that the O.P. No. 3 had issued the insurance policy in question on 8.4.2014 (Ex. OP3/B) after receipt of duly filled-in & singed proposal form and a sum of Rs.50,000/- through cheque, towards first installment of premium. He further submitted that the complainant had requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him. His request was accepted and in order to make the refund of the said amount, vide letter dated 2.6.2014, he was asked to supply certain documents at the earliest, but he has not supplied the same, therefore, he himself was negligent in performing his duty, as such, the complaint filed by him is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the O.P. company is still ready to refund the above said amount, provided the complainant supplies the requisite documents.

 

8.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that no letter was received by the complainant regarding furnishing of documents, as alleged by the O.P. No.3. Even the O.P. No.3 has not placed on record the copy of the letter dated 2.6.2014, alleged to have been sent to him asking for supply of certain documents, thus, in the absence thereof, the mere assertion of the O.P. No.3 has no legs to stand, as such, the O.P. No.3 is deficient in rendering service and he is entitled for the refund of the  amount paid by him alongwith interest, compensation for mental agony & physical harassment and litigation expenses.

 

9.                Admittedly, after receipt of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant, HDFC Life Super Income Plan bearing No.16706734 dated 8.4.2014 (Ex. OP3/B) was issued by the O.P. No.3. It is also admitted that the complainant had made a request to the O.P. No.3 vide his letter dated 29.5.2014 for cancellation of the policy and for refund of the amount paid by him. As per version of the O.P. No. 3 his request was accepted and in order to refund the amount paid by him, vide letter dated 2.6.2014, he was asked to submit certain documents, but he has failed to supply the same, therefore, the amount could not be refunded to him, whereas the stand of the complainant is that he had received no such letter from the O.P. No.3. The onus to prove that it had sent a letter dated 2.6.2014 to the complainant was upon the O.P. No. 3, but it had failed to do so, because neither any copy of the said letter allegedly written to the complainant nor any postal receipt regarding sending of the same to him has been placed on record by it. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary proof, the plea of the O.P. No.3 that the refund of the amount could not made to the complainant for want of furnishing of certain documents by him, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the O.P. No.3 is held to be deficient in rendering service and it is liable to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment and also the litigation expenses. It is made clear here that the complainant shall furnish the above said documents, as required by the O.P. No.3, to enable it to make refund of the above said amount of Rs.50,000/-. So far as the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that nothing against the said O.P. has been alleged in the complaint, nor any deficiency in service on the part of the said O.P. has been proved on record, therefore, the complaint against O.P. No. 1 is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is dismissed, whereas the complaint filed against O.P. No.2 already stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the complaint filed against the O.P. No. 3 is allowed, with the directions to it, in the following manner:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.50,000/-,

                   ii)      To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation,

                   iii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   At the same time, we also direct the complainant to supply—(i) NEFT Mandate, (ii) Original cancelled cheque, (iii) Advance Discharge Voucher, (iv) Copy of ID proof and (v) Copy of address proof, to the O.P. No.3, within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The O.P. No. 3 is further directed to make compliance of the above said directions, given to it, within a period of 30 days after the receipt of the above said documents from the complainant.

                    The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 09.07.2015                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.