Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 363.
Instituted on : 12.07.2016.
Decided on : 09.03.2018.
Joginder Singh Saini son of Shiv Ram Resident of House No.832 Ward No.9, Panchayati Mandir, Babra Mohalla, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Branch Manager, HDFC-Life, 2nd Floor Ashoka Building Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Opp. Myna Tourist Complex, Rothak.
- The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Sandoz House, 2nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annis Basant Road, Worli Mumbai, (Maharashtra) code-00488517.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.B.Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT :
1. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant took an insurance policy of Rs.300000/- commenced from 26.11.2014 for a period of 10 years and paid the premium of Rs.30000/- on 26.09.2014 under plan HDFC Life Pro Growth Plus . The complainant was facing financial crisis/hardship so he did not want to continue his above said policy and on 23.10.2015 complainant visited the office of the respondent and made a written request to close the policy and to return his amount of premium but the respondents did not refund the amount of the complainant deposited by him as premium of the said policy and has withheld the amount of Rs.30000/- illegally. After that the respondents were served upon with a registered legal notice dated 19.01.2016 and notices were duly served upon the respondents and acknowledgement has been received by the complainant but so far the respondents have not refunded the said amount. The respondents have been illegally harassing the complainant by withholding his amount of Rs.30000/-. Hence the complainant has no other legal remedy but to file the present complaint and prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount of Rs.30000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.10000/- as compensation for illegal harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. The answering opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations made by the complainant. The complainant has concealed the fact that the complainant himself purchased insurance policy bearing No.17203821 dated 26.09.2014, wherein all the terms and conditions were explained to him at the time of taking the policy. As per 2011(1)CLT485(SC) and 2009(4) CLT313(SC) it has been held that the terms and conditions of the policy are binding between the parties.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. At the outset, as per terms and conditions of the policy there was lock-in-period of 15 days. The complainant could get the proposal cancelled within that period of 15 days but not afterwards. After lapse of the lock-in-period of 15 days the policy shall be governed by other terms and conditions.
5. Obviously there was no deficiency of service as the premium was paid on 26.09.2014, the policy was commenced from 26.11.2014 and the complainant demanded the amount of first premium back on 23.10.2015 i.e. after about one year and he himself is responsible.
6. The complaint is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.03.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
