BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.292 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.07.2015
Date of Decision :27.04.2016
Kanwaljit Singh son of Niranjin Singh R/o 6037 Zenith Ave.S.Edina MN, 55410, USA through authority holder Ranjit Singh son of Gurdial Singh R/o 1056, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Life, 13th Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, NM Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, through Branch Manager, Office of HDFC Life, First Floor, Opp.Commissioner's Office, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Ranjit Singh, Auth.Rep.on behalf the complainant.
Sh.AK Gandhi Adv., counsel for OP.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the averments that complainant filled in and signed proposal form for obtaining life insurance policy, bearing No.14721664 from the OP in November, 2011. The agent of the OP had advised the complainant that the policy would be of single term payment. Complainant submitted that in December 2013, half yearly statement of the said policy for the period from May to November 2013, was received from opposite party and complainant was shocked to learn that the policy was in discontinued stage as its subsequent premiums had not been paid by the complainant. The complainant approached the OP through email and stated that he has not received the policy documents from the OP then OP sent reply on 18.1.2014 to the effect that the policy document has since been delivered to him on 6.12.2011 by Shri Chakra Courier vide POD No.021207848 at the given address of the complainant in India. But the OP failed to sent the copy of said POD. The OP told the complainant to furnish them the indemnity bond to issue him the duplicate copy of the policy document. On 23.3.2014 the complainant took the matter with the Grievances Redressal Officer of the OP then the OP furnished soft copy of POD to the complainant. The complainant found that the signature bearing on POD are forged and fabricated one. Thereafter, OP agreed to cancel the policy in question and to refund the complete capital amount of premium paid by the complainant to the OP i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and the OP remitted this amount to the complainant on 17.11.2014 without any interest. The complainant approached the OP for payment of interest on this amount but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay interest on the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed written statement pleading that the matter between the parties has already been settled and full and final payment of the dispute in question has been made to the complainant and the complainant executed discharge voucher dated 11.9.2014 with his free will in favour of the OP. As per the discharge voucher, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was duly credited in the account of the complainant. So the complainant can not be allowed to reopen the matter. Moreover, the policy of the complainant was cancelled by the OP in good gesture. In the proposal form, there is no condition regarding the payment of interest. So the question of payment of interest to the complainant does not arise. The complainant has suppressed the fact that at the time of full and final settlement of his claim, he has already discharged the OP from all type of liabilities by executing discharge voucher dated 11.9.2014 in favour of the OP. It is within the knowledge of the complainant that the policy was for period of 10 years not for single term payment policy, even then in good gesture the opposite party cancelled the policy of the complainant and refund the amount of premium to the complainant. It is wrong that policy documents had never been received by the complainant. As per the courier receipt, the policy documents were duly received by the complainant at his given address. The OP denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, authorized representative of complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant filled in and signed proposal form for obtaining life insurance policy bearing No.14721664 from the OP in November, 2011 and paid Rs.50,000/-. The complainant submitted that the agent of the OP had told the complainant that the policy would be of single term payment. Complainant further submitted that in December 2013, half yearly statement of the said policy for the period from May 2013 to November 2013 was received from opposite party from where complainant was shocked to learn that the policy was in discontinued state as its subsequent premiums had not been paid by the complainant. The complainant approached the OP through email and stated that he has not received the policy documents from the OP, then OP sent reply on 18.1.2014 to the effect that the policy documents have since been delivered to policy holder on 6.12.2011 by Shri Chakra Courier vide POD No.021207848 at the given address in India. But the OP failed to sent the copy of said POD, then the OP told the complainant to furnish them the indemnity bond so that duplicate copy of the policy could be issued. When the complainant took the matter with the Grievances Redressal Officer of the OP, then the OP furnished soft copy of POD to the complainant. The complainant found that the signature appearing on POD are forged and fabricated one and then the OP agreed to cancel the policy in question and to refund the complete capital amount of premium paid by the complainant to the OP i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and the OP remitted this amount to the complainant on 17.11.2014 without any interest. The complainant approached the OP for payment of interest on this amount but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Representative of the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
7. Whereas, the case of the OP is that the matter between the parties has already been settled and full and final payment of the dispute in question has been made to the complainant and the complainant had executed discharge voucher dated 11.9.2014 with his will in favour of the OP. As per the discharge voucher Ex.OP1, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was duly credited to the account of the complainant. So the complainant can not be allowed to reopen the matter. The complainant has not mentioned all these facts in the complaint. Moreover, the policy of the complainant has already been cancelled by the OP in good gesture. In the proposal form, there is no condition regarding the payment of interest. So, the question of payment of interest to the complainant does not arise. The complainant has suppressed the fact that at the time of full and final settlement of his claim, he has already discharged the OP from all type of liabilities and executed discharge voucher dated 11.9.2014. The proposal form Ex.OP2 was duly signed by the complainant after admitting the same to be correct one.
8. Moreover, he has submitted unit linked proposal form Ex.OP2. As such, the complainant has applied to get unit linked insurance policy thereby to earn profit by investing his amount in open market in the form of shares. As such, this complaint is not maintainable. In the proposal form, the policy was not single premium policy but for the period of 10 years and premium payment term was also 10 years. However, as a good will gesture, the OP cancelled the policy and returned the full premium amount to the complainant. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant obtained insurance policy from the OP, filled and signed the proposal form Ex.OP2 which is clearly a unit linked policy form. As such, the complainant in order to earn profit, invested his amount in open market in the form of shares to earn profit, applied for insurance policy. In the proposal form which is filled in and signed by the complainant, it has been categorically mentioned that the policy term is 10 years. Premium payment term is also 10 years and the frequency of premium payment is annual. So, the complainant can not be allowed to say he had applied for single term premium policy. Moreover, he has applied for insurance policy and invested his amount in the open market in the form of shares to earn profit i.e. for commercial purpose. As such, present complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. As held by Hon'ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors, Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 decided on 23.4.2013 as under:-
“The District Forum observed that admittedly the complainant is an advocate having vast experience and is also a Notary. His wife Tarini Agrawal was the recognized agent of the insurance company. In such circumstances, the allegation of fraud being practiced on him in the matter of issuance of policy is totally unacceptable. The Forum also observed that the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection, they also reliance on the decision of this commission in the case of Smt.Abanti Kumar Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, (FA No.162 of 2010)”.
10. Apart from this, as a good will gesture, the OP cancelled the policy applied for by the complainant and issued by the OP, though not received by the complainant as alleged by complainant and paid the entire premium amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and that too with the consent of the complainant. The complainant executed discharge voucher and signed on the revenue stamp that he is receiving full and final settlement of the policy and declare that after payment of the amount due i.e. Rs.50,000/-, the OP will thereby discharged of all its liabilities under the said policy. The complainant never raised any objection against this discharge voucher. All this fully proves that he has signed this discharge voucher Ex.OP1 with his free will without any pressure, allurement, etc. Resultantly, the OP paid Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement of the dispute in question between the parties regarding the policy of the complainant, in the account of the complainant which is duly received by the complainant. Once the complainant has received the amount as full and final settlement of his claim and executed the discharge voucher Ex.OP1 with his own free will without any pressure or allurement, etc, the complainant can not be allowed to raise any dispute again. Rather, the complainant has concealed all these facts from this Forum. He has not mentioned these facts in his complaint. Rather it proves that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.
11. Consequently, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant. As such, complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh
27.04.2016 Member Member President
