JUDGEMENT

                    One Salim Ahmed by filing this complaint simply states that as a policy holder of the op, Salim Ahmed gave a call to customer care for renewal of his simple policy bearing No.13150734 through the Credit Card and told the customer care centre to make his policy for renewal which was after few days from the date of his call.  Thereafter he received a call from customer care and they told him that they will do it and suggested him that he shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- then he will get extra benefit and they also told him that his policy renewal will be paid by credit card and they will arrange for EMI and relied upon their assurance he sent his identity card and credit card number to that person by E-mail Id Jiten.yadav Hdfc@gmail.com and complainant sent it for the purpose of his renewal of the policy.  But when they got his credit card and identity card information they did it and that was complainant’s faith and subsequently he found that they deducted Rs.47,000/- and after few days he received one policy through postman on 07.09.2010 and then there he made a complaint to the said Jitendra Yadav and op.

          After few days complainant received a call from them and they told him that complainant has made a complaint for a new policy what complainant did not need it.  When the said person stated that close complainant’s first policy and continue the new policy.  And when complainant asked them, then his money shall be forfeited but at that time the said customer care centre Yadav informed that complainant will get his money after 3 years.  But in reply, complainant stated that he is not interested to continue this policy for which he asked to cancel this policy.  Then they replied yes O.K. and they will cancel his policy.  But they did not cancel the new policy.

          Thereafter complainant has called to credit card department not to do any transecting or shopping or any work for his credit card.  So, they told him if he pays Rs.1,500/- as credit card due same will be closed and thereafter complainant told the whole matter about his new policy of credit card department but credit card department already debited Rs.47,000/- from HDFC account.  Complainant’s case is that he has not made any signature in any document so they have done it by themselves adopting some unfair path and the persons who did it is Vinay Kumar Jaiswal and his financial Code is A00422247 and Kailash and telecaller name is Kusum who had called him.  After that complainant went to deposit the policy in Shyambazar, the office staff told him that complainant cannot deposit the policy at this stage, but same would be taken by them when they require it.

          Thereafter complainant requested the op to take action, but no action has been taken but by practicising such sort of fraud the said matter was done and in the circumstances complainant prays for redressal and refund of that money etc.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement said that the entire allegation is false and complainant contacted the op for purchase of insurance policy and out of many product plans he selected as per his choice HDFC Youngstar Supreme Suvidha for purchasing the said policy complainant himself signed the proposal form and other KYC related documents on 26.08.2010 and complainant also paid premium to the op by credit card and for which he signed the credit card mandate form.  But allegation of selling the policy wrongly without his knowledge are false and fabricated and the policy amount which the complainant as alleged is also not correct since the policy amount is Rs.30,000/- and not Rs.46,774.61/- as falsely alleged.  Moreover from the first premium receipt as Annexure-6 in his complaint the op further states that the policy document was dispatched to the customer accompanied by a letter wherein “option to return” clause is stated which gives the policy holder the option to return the policies stating the reasons thereof within 15 days.  Moreover, it is submitted that the policy was delivered to the complainant through Bluedart Courier on 03.09.2010 which was received by MD Rashid and complainant was well aware of fact after expiry of 15 days the matter shall not be issued.  Further it was submitted that to ops complainant wrote first time on 20.09.2000 which was duly replied by the op on 21.10.2010 again wrote the letter on 14.07.2011 and on 17.10.2011 which were also replied by the op on 26.07.2011 and 21.10.2011 respectively.  So, in the above circumstances, there was no fault on the part of the op and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                            Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the entire complaint including written version and also after considering the defence of the op particularly the copy of the Simpli Life Suvidha Proposal Form it is found that the proposal form was executed at New Delhi on 26.08.2010 and no doubt there is a signature.  But peculiar factor is that most part of the form is filled up by some other person and it was not written by Md. Salim and further the address of the complainant is noted within Kolkata.  Then question of execution of such proposal form at New Delhi cannot be believed.  Further fact is that everything was collected from internet system because complainant had his another policy.  Considering that fact, it is clear that 2^nd policy (Disputed Policy) was shown executed at New Delhi.  But there was no such proof that complainant went to New Delhi and executed it at Janakpuri Branch at New Delhi.  In this regard we have minutely considered the Ld. Lawyer’s submission on behalf of the op and written version and considering that fact it is clear the Ld. Lawyer for the op failed to show any satisfactory explanation whether the complainant went to Janakpuri Branch of the present insurance company for the purpose of execution of the proposal form on 26.08.2010.  So, apparently it is clear that the whole matter has been prepared by the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. by adopting unfair trade practice and by taking all materials from the previous policy documents of the complainant being No.13150734 and in fact the entire 2^nd policy was prepared by the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. through internet system and fact remains Md. Salim did not submit any proposal form.  But the signature in the subsequent form i.e. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. proposal form is not original signature but it is internet system transmitted signature taken from previous policy.  Another factor is that consultant Vinay Kumar Jaiswal A/C No. 422247 which did all such ace practically the complainant has alleged that he asked Vinay Kumar Jaiswal to deposit the renewal fees in respect of his first policy.  There is allegation against Vinay Kumar Jaiswal consultant of the HDFC but against allegation Vinay Kumar Jaiswal there is no denial by the op.  So, it is clear that Vinay Kumar Jaiswal collecting the credit card and identity card number managed to prepare such type of document and complainant has produced said document wherefrom it is found that Jitendra Yadav collected Id Card, PAN Card and another card from the complainant and thereafter prepared such 2^nd policy No.13886663.  But anyhow it is proved that the consultant Mr. Yadav from his account deducted Rs.47,000/-.  But in this regard op has not made any allegation and moreover it is also proved that at any point of time in the said proposal form Md. Salim signed.  It was only prepared by ops agent and consultant.  But it appears that Vinay Kumar Jaiswal consultant of the HDFC filled up the form after adopting some unfair means and also consulting previous insurance policy and practically this is the overact of the agent/consultant of the ops and it is not the first case but in so many cases this procedure has been adopted by HDFC Standard Life and in such a manner many customers have been harassed what we have gathered in someother cases also and in the present case it is proved that proposal form was not signed by the complainant.  But it was made by magic touch of the HDFC Standard Life and its agent and consultant by adopting present internet system suppressed the signature of complainant because digital signature is already in the previous policy which is used and as a result we want to say that this policy is prepared at Janakpuri Branch at New Delhi and complainant never signed it at Janakpuri Branch whereas in proposal form it is found same is executed at Janakpuri Branch at New Delhi on 26.08.2010.  So, the entire allegation of the op is proved false and fabricated and by adopting dishonest procedure they did it and no doubt the complainant has been cheated by the ops and his consultant and his agent.  In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the policy document is nothing but a prepared document and it was prepared beyond the knowledge of the op and no doubt the deduction made by the op adopting such process is illegal and uncalled for and by adopting such process no doubt the complainant has been cheated by the op.  In the above circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the policy present 2^nd policy being No.13886663 is not a valid policy and it was never executed by the complainant and it was prepared by taking chance of present scientific process of internet system after on logging the details of the previous policy of the complainant and no doubt the complainant had no desire to open such a policy and by adopting unfair trade practice this policy was actually prepared by the ops to increase their business and to cheat the public at large.  In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

          About payment there is some discrepancy because op has stated that he paid Rs.30,000/- but complainant’s document showed that Rs.47,000/-was withdrawn by the HDFC agent and consultant.  So, invariably op is boung to refund that amount because they adopted unfair trade practice.  In the result, we are convinced to hold that the 2nd disputed policy bearing No.13886663 is nothing but a procured document and it was never executed by the complainant and it was never submitted by the complainant.  But fact remains that op with the help of their agent, consultant manipulated this Form by taking help of internet system in respect of complainant’s earlier policy No.1350734 and by adopting that procedure no doubt op have adopted an unfair trade practice for which they shall be dealt with accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is                        ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the ops.

          Ops are directed to refund the sum of Rs.47,000/- treating the disputed policy No.13886663 as procured policy which was never executed by the complainant and moreover for harassing the complainant in such a manner ops shall have to pay jointly and severally a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with cost as awarded.

          For adopting unfair trade practice by the ops, ops are jointly and severally directed to pay punitive damages to the extent of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited to the State Consumer Welfare Fund. 

          Ops are directed to comply the order very strictly failing which for noncompliance of the Forum’s order and for each day’s delay from the stipulated date of compliance, ops jointly and severally are directed to pay penal interest @ Rs.300/- per day and till full satisfaction of this decree by the ops.

          Even for any reasons it is found that ops are reluctant to comply the Forum’s order, in that case the proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 will be proceeded for implementation of this order, even they may also be sent to jail for non-compliance of the order.