DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.544 of 04-11-2011
Decided on 13-03-2012
Shital Garg, aged about 36 years, w/o Sanjiv Garg, R/o St. No.13, Namdev Nagar,
Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Manager, Guru Kanshi Marg,
Near Ahluwalia Complex, Bathinda. ......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one insurance policy No.13366984 after paying Rs.12,000/- in the month of December, 2009 on the allurement of the opposite party that the complainant has to make the payment of Rs.12,000/- at once and the insured amount would be Rs.60,000/-, in case she wanted to get the refund of the said amount, she will be given Rs.12,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. and no charges will be deducted. The complainant has alleged that neither any cover note nor any separate terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant by the opposite party and even free look period was not provided to her. The manager of the opposite party also got signatures of the complainant on many other blank printed documents and told that these documents were required for commencement of the policy. The complainant has further alleged that she went to the bank and was surprised to know that another amount of Rs.12,000/- has been withdrawn by the opposite party from her bank account without any instruction from the complainant. The banker of the complainant told her that she has authorized the opposite party to debit her account as such the opposite party can directly withdraw any amount from the account of the complainant which is sister concern of the opposite party. The complainant immediately requested the opposite party to supply her document or any such authorization on the basis of which the opposite party directly withdrew the amount from her account. She was also surprised to see that her signatures have been forged by the opposite party and debit authorization does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The complainant purchased one time payment policy. Thereafter, she went to the opposite party for seeking refund of Rs.24,000/- along with interest but the opposite party refused to do so and told that she has to make the payment of minimum of three years, otherwise she will not be entitled to get the refund. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund Rs.24,000/- along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum, has filed its written statement and denied that the opposite party has told the complainant that she has to pay Rs.12,000/- once only or she would get the refund of Rs.12,000/- with interest at any time. The complainant purchased the policy in question voluntarily of her own accord, after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the policy and after submitting duly signed proposal form and even signing a declaration to this effect. The complainant is a graduate. The opposite party has further denied that no cover note or terms and conditions were supplied to the complainant rather the policy documents were sent to her immediately after issuance of the policy along with copy of proposal form and a letter with an option to get the policy cancelled within free look period. The manager of the opposite party has never got signatures of the complainant on any blank printed document. The opposite party has never withdrawn the amount of Rs.12,000/- from the account of the complainant without any instructions. The complainant had opted for a regular premium policy and has given standing instructions mandate for the direct debit of premium amount from her bank account. She has never approached the opposite party for redressal of her grievances.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record along with written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party approached the complainant for selling life insurance policy and conveyed her that she has to pay one time premium of Rs.12,000/- and she will be insured for Rs.60,000/-. In case, she will not satisfy with the policy, the amount of Rs.12,000/- will be refunded along with interest @ 12% p.a. She had purchased the said policy vide Insurance Policy No.13366984 and made a payment of Rs.12,000/- in the month of December, 2009 and assured that she is not required to make any further payment as the insurance amount is to be paid only once. No cover note or separate terms and conditions were sent by the opposite parties and even no Free Look Period was given to the complainant. The opposite party has got the signatures of the complainant on many blank papers and documents and told that these documents were required for commencement of the policy but another amount of Rs.12,000/-has been withdrawn by the opposite party from her bank account without any instructions of the complainant. The banker of the complainant told her that she has authorized the opposite party to debit her account as such the opposite party can directly withdraw any amount from the account of the complainant which is sister concern of the opposite party. The complainant requested the opposite party to supply her document through which he has authorized the opposite party to withdraw the amount from her account directly. The complainant was surprised to see that her signatures have been forged by the opposite party and debit authorization does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The complainant requested for refund of Rs.24,000/- along with interest but the opposite party refused to refund the same and told that she has to give the installments for three years.
6. The opposite party has taken legal objection that the present complaint is time barred and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant had purchased the policy in question from the opposite party voluntarily and after fully understanding all contents of the Proposal Form and terms & conditions of the policy and has also signed the declaration in the proposal form to this effect. The opposite party has further submitted that the complainant is graduate and the objections are not maintainable. The opposite party has denied that she has to pay Rs.12,000/- once and she can get the refund of Rs.12,000/- with interest at any time. The complainant is talking about statutory free look period and the same shows that she is fully aware of the insurance plans and rules & regulations of IRDA. Insurance cover note and terms and conditions were duly sent to the complainant immediately after issuance of the policy along with copy of proposal form and a letter with an option to get the policy cancelled. The opposite party has never got the signatures of the complainant on any blank papers and documents. The signatures of the complainant are not forged. Moreover, these allegations of forgery cannot be decided by this Forum under the 'Act' as held in 2006(4) CPJ 1 and 1993(1) CPJ 88 (NC). The complainant had opted for a regular premium policy and has given standing instructions mandate for the direct debit of premium amount from her bank account. The bank never forward the premium to the opposite party without the instructions of the complainant and the bank strictly checks and compares the signatures before transmitting the premium amount to the opposite party.
7. Ex.C-2 is the Mandate Form for direct debit which has been duly signed by Shital Garg-the complainant. A perusal of signatures mentioned on mandate form for direct debit, affidavit and complaint, are same as such the averment of the complainant that her signatures were forged, is wrong.
Admittedly, she has deposited the amount of Rs.24,000/- to the opposite party.
8. Ex.R-1 is the affidavit of Harsimran Singh, Zonal Legal Executive, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh, he has specifically mentioned that the opposite party has not withdrawn the amount of Rs.12,000/- from the account of the complainant without any instructions. The opposite party has not forged any signatures of the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party cannot withdraw any amount from the account of the complainant of their own without any prior instruction. First Premium Receipt Ex.R-2 shows that the policy plan was Unit Linked Endowment II and Premium amount Rs.12,000/-.
9. The opposite party has submitted that the terms and conditions along with application for Free Look Period option, have been duly sent to the complainant but no such mode has been described by the opposite party through which these terms and conditions/policy documents and Free Look Period application have been sent to the complainant.
10. A perusal of original unit linked proposal form shows that the installments of premium was of Rs.12,000/-, term 10 years, frequency of premium was yearly, Sum Assured was Rs.60,000/- as such the contention of the complainant that she was told that the policy was of single premium and she was told by the opposite party that she has to pay only once, is not tenable.
11. The complainant had paid two premiums. The total amount paid by the complainant, is Rs.24,000/- as she has signed the Proposal Form and she was fully aware of all terms and conditions under which she has filled the proposal form as thing relating to premium, term of premium, sum assured, frequency of premium, are mentioned in the proposal form itself. So the contention of the complainant that she has not received the terms and conditions, policy documents and Free Look Period Application Form, is also not tenable but keeping in view circumstances, the complainant has applied for refund of Rs.24,000/-. She does not want to continue with the policy. The opposite party has placed on file Ex.R-3 terms and conditions, issued against Policy No.13366984 under column 14. The surrender charges are to be given as per schedule of charges (For HDFC Unit Linked Endowment II) continued:
No. of Original Annualized Regular Premiums not paid in the first 5 years | Surrender Charges |
|---|
4 | 95% of the fund value |
3 | 35% of the fund value |
2 | 15% of the fund value |
1 | 5% of the fund value |
0 | NIL |
But as per the IRDA rules which are applicable on all the Insurance policies. The deduction under the Surrender Charges of IRDA (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority) (Standardization of terms and conditions of ULIP Products and treatment of lapsed policies)Regulations, 2010 can be done as under:-
“10...... The proceeds of the lapsed policies shall invariably be refunded to the policyholder after the expiry of the revival period or at any time after completion of 3 years term as and when demanded by the policyholder. In case, there is no demand from the policyholder for refund, insurance company shall refund the amount on its own by means of a cheque/demand draft to be delivered to the insured/nominee at his last known address. However, Insurer may deduct charges on account of pre-closure and lapsation which should, in any case, not exceed the charges stated in regulation 8 above.
Regulation No.8 i.e. Surrender Charges of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Standardization of terms and conditions of ULIP Products and treatment of lapsed policies) Regulations, 2010, is reproduced hereunder:-
“It is observed that insurers apply different surrender charges while paying the surrender value to the Insured. After due consideration of various practices, the Authority orders that the surrender charges (as percentage of fund value) shall not exceed the limits specified below:-
Year Policy period
Less than 10 years More than 10 years
------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
Ist year 12.50% 15%
2nd year 10.00% 12.50%
3rd year 7.50% 10%
4th year 5.00% 7.50%
5th year 2.50% 5%
6th year Nil 2.50%
7th year & onward Nil Nil
12. In the present case, the complainant paid two premiums amounting to Rs.24,000/- and the policy was for 20 years. Hence, the applicable period on this policy, is 3rd year i.e.
10% deduction will be done.
13. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite party is directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.21,600/- (Rs.24,000 – 10% = Rs.21,600). Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% will yield on the amount of Rs.21,600/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
13-03-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
