Delhi

North East

CC/295/2024

SH. NANDLAL PATEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC LIFE INSURANCE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 295/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Nand Lal Patel S/o Sh. Chulhai Patel R/o H.No. G 103, St. No. 4, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	HDFC Life Insurance Through Its Manager/AR/Director   The Manager Through its Manager/AR/Director HDFC Life Insurance Delhi-110092	Opposite Parties

 

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.
2.  As per the complaint, the case of the Complainant is that Complainant purchased policy bearing no. 23187396  on 09.11.19 and paid yearly premium Rs. 1,04,037/- and it was mentioned on the policy bond that the yearly premium was Rs. 1,02,250/-.  On 28.03.23 Complainant received call from Opposite Party No.1 the Complainant was informed that if he pays the premium before the due date 09.11.23, he will get rebate on the premium and thereafter Complainant paid premium of Rs. 1,04,037/- on 31.03.23 after receiving information by Opposite Party No.1. After paying the premium the Complainant did not get the rebate and rather informed that bank started new policy. It is stated that Opposite Party gave the false information to Complainant and stared new policy without consent of Complainant and Complainant is not willing to start new policy and want to continue previous policy. The Complainant send legal notice dated 25.01.24   to Opposite Party and Opposite Party replied on 06.02.24 on false and frivolous grounds.
3. In the present case, in support of his complaint, Complainant did not file any document regarding his allegation of receiving message from the Opposite Party if he paid premium before due date i.e. 09.11.23 he will get rebate on the premium. Further, on payment of Rs. 1,04,037/- he had received new policy no. 25952625 on 30.03.23 with an option of cancellation in the free look period of 30 days. As per the record filed along with complaint he did not cancel this policy within 30 days of free look period.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
5. In view of above, Complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 16.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)        Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)               President