Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Dr.Neerja Jindal has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  Opposite Party No.1 is an insurance company floated by Opposite Party No.2 with its offices all over India and one such office being situated at the given address. It carries on the business of Life Insurance and its service is sought through its Branch Manager in accordance with law. Opposite Party No.2 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act carrying on the business of banking through out India through many branches with one such branch at the address given above and its services is sought through its Branch Manager in accordance with law. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are the employees of Opposite Party No.2 and working for Opposite Party No.1 as well, and they were as such at the relevant time. The complainant who is of more than 63 years of age and was of age 60 years in December, 2010 is having a ‘preferred account’ with Opposite Party No.2 for the last more than 10 years. Being ‘preferred customer’, Ms.Ridhi Bhatia as well as Mr.Karan Raj Sharma, both are relationship managers assigned to her by Opposite Party No.2. In December, 2010, both Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 Ms.Ridhi Bhatia as well as Mr.Karan Raj Sharma approached the complainant to buy life insurance policies of Opposite Party No.1 narrating various benefits of th same. The complainant was a senior doctor in the department of Government Medical College, Amritsar in those days and was on the verge of  retirement in December, 2010, hence could not afford to invest large amount of money in long term schemes. Both Ms.Ridhi Bhatia as well as Mr.Karan Raj Sharma persuaded the complainant (on the promise that she will have to pay the full premium only once and from the next year, she will have to pay only Rs.10,000/-) and then got two pay orders made from account of the complainant amounting to Rs.2 lacs as well as one lac dated 14.12.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively of their own and took out two policies of Opposite Party No.1 in the name of complainant vide policy No. 14084954 as well as 14106246. It was reiterated to the complainant by the above mentioned Relationship Managers that the complainant would have to pay the amount as mentioned above only once and from the next year, the premium of both the policies would be reduced to Rs.10,000/- each. However, when the documents of policies mentioned above were received, they did not mention anything about reduced premium subsequently. Ms.Ridhi Bhatia as well as Mr.Karan Raj Sharma were approached, who took policy documents along and assured the complainant that the required correction in the policy will be done soon. Whenever they were asked about the corrected policy document, they assured the complainant that she would receive the same soon. In the meantime in January, 2012 which was the time for the first renewal premiums of these policies, both Relationship Managers took two cheques No. 828541 and 828542 drawn on OBC Bank, Faridkot of Rs.10,155/- each when the complainant was in Amritsar. They deposited these cheques with  Opposite Party No.1, who got the same encashed on 28.1.2012. Thus Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 assured the complainant that the reduced premiums of her both policies stands approved as cheques of premium had been received and encashed by Opposite Party No.1, through no further document was received by complainant to this effect. For a whole year, the complainant received no communication from Opposite Party No.1. But to her utter surprise, she received two cheques from Opposite Party No.1 bearing No. 288407 & 288404 dated 15.2.2013 for Rs.10,155/- each, with one line information “payment towards lapsed policies”. On receiving these cheques, the complainant immediately contacted both Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 in this regard, but both Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 assured the complainant that there was some mistake at the end of Opposite Party No.1, and that they will get the things set right. However, despite repeated communication with them, nothing was done till date, when Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 told the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 has refused to lower the premium and that complainant will have to pay penalty also to get the policies revived, though no written communication was sent by Opposite Party No.1 in this regard, nor policy documents were returned by Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. They also did not offer any explanation why Opposite Party No.1 accepted and  encashed the reduced premium cheques in January, 2012 and after a complete silence of one year, has suddenly declared both the policies as lapsed. It is obvious that the complainant was made to buy the two policies with misrepresentation by Opposite Parties  who first sold her the two policies on the basis of misrepresentation, then accepted the reduced renewal premium for one year and finally declared the policies lapsed without any prior communication, information or explanation. The above said acts of Opposite Parties  of selling the policies of multiple premiums by misrepresenting the same for single full premiums and subsequently reduced premium, and then firstly accepting reduced premium and then returning the same after on year, is gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, which has resulted in harassment as  well as mental agony alongwith financial loss to the complainant for which she is entitled for compensation as well as refund of the amount with interest. The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to refund Rs.3 lacs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of receipt till date of payment.

b)      Opposite Parties  be directed to pay Rs.1 lac for harassment as well as mental agony.

c)       Opposite Parties  be directed to pay costs of complaint to the tune of Rs.22,000/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, all the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint.

3.       Opposite Party No.1 filed the written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is a malafide cause as the same has been filed by the complainant with a view to harass and pressurise the Opposite Party; the allegations and the contention given by the complainant in this complaint are totally false, frivolous and baseless. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is and having no connection with Opposite Parties  No.2, 3 and 4. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 which is HDFC Standard Life Insurance is different entity from HDFC Bank having their separate business. There is no commonness business between the two and however no deficiency in service caused due to negligence of Opposite Party No.1. However, from the above facts and circumstances, it clearly proves that the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint are false. The true facts are that there was no occasion when the representative of Opposite Party No.1 offering the option of investment in HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy; The present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has intentionally made party to Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 whereas the policy was discussed earlier by the complainant with Jaspreet Kaur and Deepak Sharma. The complainant had intentionally made party to 34 had intentionally made party to 34 so as to confuse this Forum. The complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The real facts are that the complainant herself showed her willingness and desire to invest before the official of Opposite Party No.1 for the purpose of investing money in HDFC Personal Pension Plan (Regular Premium). The complainant had opted two insurance policies HDFC Personal Pension Plan (Regular Premium) saving for a term of 10 years with a yearly premium of Rs.2 lacs and one lac dated 14.12.2010 and 20.12.2010 respectively. The complainant had duly signed a proposal form dated 14.12.2010 and 20.12.2010 for the purchase of HDFC Personal Pension Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the life assured and the policies were issued/ commenced bearing No. 14084954 and 14106246 on 27.12.2010. Copy of the said proposal form/ application is attached. As the complainant is literate and doctor by profession and is an old customer of replying Opposite Party and well qualified person as such she understands each and every thing and this fact  clearly establish that she is having full knowledge about the terms and conditions of the policy in question and she had signed all the requisite forms/ documents of policy after fully understanding and admitting the contents/ terms and conditions of the policy in question. Accordingly, after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy in question, the complainant signed the illustrations. The copy of said illustration is attached herewith; that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in present manner as such liable to be dismissed. It is alleged by the complainant as the insurance plan sold to her is not for large scale investment is just a  false and baseless plea so as to confuse the  present Forum. The complainant is an old customer of replying Opposite Party and usually deal in insurance for the purpose of getting  benefit of saving from income tax alongwith the benefit of his life. Towards the payment of the premium, the complainant has to be paid Rs.3 lacs towards premium. Hence, it can not be said that the complainant was paying the amount of Rs.3 lacs. The complainant also admitted her liability after giving declaration in the proposal form and other documents after admitting the correctness of the documents she put her signature the other documents; that the complaint is without any cause of action and it is filed just to harass, pressurise the Opposite Party, therefore, the complaint deserved dismissal on this ground also. On merits, the facts narrated in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In their separate written reply, Opposite Parties  No.2, 3 and 4  also took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against replying Opposite Parties  as they are not employees of Opposite Party No.1 and they have no deal in the matter between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The replying Opposite Parties were not required to be made parties in the complaint because they did not take any part which can termed as deficiency in service  on the part of bank; the replying Opposite Parties  have been unnecessarily dragged into frivolous litigation; that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint against the replying Opposite Parties; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts, therefore, she is not entitled to any relief claimed in the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that pay orders amounting to Rs.2 lacs and Rs.1 lac dated 14.12.2010 and 20.12.2010 were got issued by the complainant herself with her own free will for obtaining the policies from Opposite Party No.1. The allegations levelled against Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are totally false and incorrect. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.         

5.       In her bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence account statement Ex.C1, affidavit Ex.C2, copy of account statement of OBC Ex.C3, copies of refund advice of premium of Opposite Parties dated 15.2.2013 Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of e-mail Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

6.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Assocaite Manager Legal Ex.OP1/1, copies of proposal forms Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3, copies of illustration forms Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5, copy of delivery receipt Ex.OP1/6, copy of CCR Ex.OP1/6/A, copy of PAN Ex.OP1/7, copies of letters Ex.OP1/8 to Ex.OP1/16. Similarly, Opposite Parties  No.2, 3 and 4  tendered into evidence affidavit of Ridhi Bhatia, Senior Manager Ex.OP2,3,4/1, affidavit of Karan Raj Sharma, Sr.Manager Ex.OP2,3,4/2, affidavit of Sh.Mridul Raswan Ex.OP2,3,4/3 and closed the respective evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.    

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

8.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant had purchased two insurance policies in December, 2010 from Opposite Party No.1 on payment of premium to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and one lac each. As a matter of fact, it is the case of the complainant that these were one time premium policies, but however, lateron it was found that those policies were for a period of 10 years each and the premium was to be paid on annual basis. On receipt of the insurance policies, copies whereof Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/10 respectively, the complainant approached the agents of Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 and asked them as to why he has been asked to pay premium as per the alleged terms and conditions of the insurance policies whereas it was settled that the premium payable would be only Rs.10,000/- each for both the policies  in January, 2012. At this, both the policies were taken back by Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 and they told the complainant that they would make this fact known to Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant should not worry on that account. They also took two cheques bearing No. 828541 and 828542 drawn on OBC Bank, Faridkot of Rs.10,155/- each. They deposited these cheques with  Opposite Party No.1, which got the same encashed on 28.1.2012, copy of bank statement is Ex.C3 on record. For the whole year, the complainant received no communication from Opposite Party No.1. But to her utter surprise, she received two cheques from Opposite Party No.1 bearing No. 288407 & 288404 dated 15.2.2013 for Rs.10,155/- each, copies whereof are Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, with one line information “payment towards lapsed policies”. On receiving those cheques, the complainant immediately contacted Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 in this regard, but both Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 assured the complainant that there was some misunderstanding at the end of Opposite Party No.1, and that they will get the things set right. But, however, despite repeated communication with them, nothing tangible was done so far. The complainant received letter Ex.C6 from Ms.Ridhi Bhatia Opposite Party No.3, wherein it has been intimated that “Kindly initiate for waiver of penal interest levied to reinstate polices post payment of dues (25% of the original premium). Please arrange penal interest waiver confirmation letter to Dr.Jindal with policies” which shows that the insurance policies in dispute were never lapsed, rather the complainant was permitted by Opposite Party No.1 to make the payment of the reduced premium without mortality charges of the missing period. Now it is too late for Opposite Party No.1 to contend that insurance policies had lapsed when it has already been intimated to her to pay reduced premium as intimated vide letter Ex.C6, whereas  Opposite Party No.1 got two cheques bearing No. 828541 and 828542 drawn on OBC Bank, Faridkot of Rs.10,155/- each dated 15.2.2013 as stated above and got the same encashed. In such a situation, there was absolutely no reason with Opposite Party No.1 to lapse the insurance policies issued to the complainant. As such, in our considered opinion, Opposite Party No.1 is deficient in service. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 can not wriggle out  from admission when they accepted the payment of the  reduced premium amount vide two cheques   bearing No. 828541 and 828542 drawn on OBC Bank, Faridkot of Rs.10,155/- each. Resultantly, both the policies stated above are required to be revived with reduced premium (s) without any mortality charges of the missing period.

9.       Consequently, the complainant is directed to deposit the due premium(s) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and within further period of 30 days, Opposite Party No.1 shall restore the policies bearing  No. 14084954 and  14106246 respectively with reduced premium(s) without any mortality charges of the missing period. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Since Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have acted in their official capacity as employees of Opposite Party No.1 and,  Opposite Party No.2 having been misjoined, therefore, complaint against those fails and is ordered to be dismissed.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 24.08.2016.