Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/83/2015

Rajveer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Stanard Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   83 of 29.07.2015 

Date of Decision              :   07.01.2016      

Rajveer Kaur D/o Sohan Singh R/o Village Karimpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, age 30 years.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Nawanshahr Road, Banga, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar through its Manager.
2. H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Branch Nawanshahr Road, Banga, District SBS Nagar through its Manager.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Amit Sharma, Advocate.

For OP No.1                           :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP No.2                            :         Sh.S.K. Dewan, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) by alleging that in January 2013, he along with her father went to OP No.2 bank for depositing Rs.3,00,000/- in saving account of her father, but employees of OPs called upon them to deposit the said amount in fixed deposit in her name.  On their request, father of complainant and she herself agreed to deposit said Rs.3 Lac in FDR, but employees of Ops misguided them with assurance that the amount would be linked with the saving account of father of complainant.  Handed over amount of Rs.3 lac was deposited in FD in name of complainant, but employees of Ops disclosed that after deduction of charges, the said amount invested in FDR for fixed period of two years and six months, which will entail interest @9.5% per annum.  In July 2015 that is after expiry of period of 2 years and six months, both complainant and her father visited Op No.2 for enquiring about the FDs and there they got knowledge that instead of investing the amount in FDRs, the same has been invested with OP No.1 in policies bearing No.15737443 and 16105660.  OPs invested Rs.1 lac out of the above referred amount of Rs.3 Lac in January 2013 and remaining amount of Rs.2 lac in June 2013.  Ops retained amount of Rs.2 Lac for six months with them.  Thereafter complainant and her father asked manager of OP to cancel the policy and return back the amount, but he did not pay heed to these requests.  Ops in connivance with each other and without consent of complainant illegally invested the amount in policies of Op No.1 despite the fact that they never asked for such investment.  So, it is claimed that complainant had been cheated and OPs have breached the trust of complainant.  Cause of action accrued to complainant in June 2014, when maturity of FDRs sought to be got issued by complainant, was to take place.  By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, directions sought to OPs to refund Rs.3 Lac alongwith interest.  Compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- also claimed.   

2.       In written statement filed by OP No. 1, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; a false story has been concocted in the complaint; complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 2 (c) of the Act; complaint has been filed with ulterior motive for harassing the Ops and humiliating OPs because the policies were duly issued after acceptance of the proposal forms submitted by complainant and moreover most important document dated 04.06.2013 qua Endowment Insurance Policy with term of 10 years, was duly singed by complainant.  Policy not got cancelled within 15 days free look period.  Act and conduct of complainant in not returning and surrendering the policies signifies about the acceptance of terms and conditions by her.   The policies have already lapsed and complainant have already got benefit of policies and as such she has not right to claim damages.  Life assured paid initial premium of Rs.1 Lac on 16.01.2013 and Rs.2 Lac on 06.06.2013 for two different policies in favour of OP No.1.  Virtually complainant has admitted the factum of payment and issuance and receipt of the policies.  The present complaint is nothing, but suit for declaration for declaring the policies as void, which is not permissible under the Act, because civil court alone can decide such complicated questions.  Deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice not proved because of the presentation of distorted and twisted picture.  In fact complainant and her father did show interest in getting their lives insured and that is why they approached Ops.  After submission of proposal form and acceptance of same, two policies were issued on 16.01.2013 and 06.06.2013, respectively.  Complainant after receipt of policies failed to pay the subsequent premiums and that is why the policies have lapsed.  Complainant was well aware of the documentation on which she put signatures.  As complainant received policies in 2013 and as such the grievances must have been put forth within stipulated period of 15 days.

3.       In separate written statement filed by Op No.2, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint in present form not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; there is concealment of material facts; this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and complaint barred by limitation, being not filed within two years.  Moreover, it is claimed that bank has been sending quarterly statement qua account of complainant.  Cock and bull story alleged to be put forth for harassing the bank and dragging it in uncalled for litigation.  Complainant, an educated person herself opted for the insurance policies.  Each and other averment of the complaint denied.   

4.       Counsel for complainant to prove his case tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant alongwith policy document Ex.C-1 and then closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Ex.OP1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/16 and then closed the evidence.  Counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A of Sh.Mohit Sarngal, Assistant Manager and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.       Written arguments not submitted by any of counsel for the parties, but oral arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard and records gone through minutely.

7.       It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that complaint is barred by limitation and as such the same liable to be dismissed in view of Section 24 – A of the Act. Even if due to non-payment of premium after purchase of the policies in question on 16.01.2013 and 06.06.2013, the policies may have lapsed, but despite that it was the duty of OP No.2 to prepare statement of guaranteed surrender value of the policy at the close of each year after the second year as per Regulations 35 (e) and 35(f) of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (Non-linked insurance products) regulations 2013, because the policies in question are saving Assurance Policies.  As after close of one year of these policies, the guaranteed value has to be shown and as such due to non-payment of further premium alone, complainant not debarred from getting the surrender value as per IRDA Regulations because Regulation – 11 provides that guaranteed surrender value to be credited to the account of insured at the end of each year starting from policy year five.  That surrender value is to accrue in January 2018 and June 2018.  Being so the complaint filed prior to the above said period is not barred by limitation because of recurring cause of action available to complainant.

8.       The policies in question are produced on record as Ex.C-1 (in two parts).  Dispute qua issue of these policies raised by claiming that infact the amount was invested in FDRs.  Complainant has put her signatures in English on the complaint as well as on affidavit and Vakalatnama and as such she knows English language.  Even the policy documents in two parts of Ex.C-1 are in legible English         and as those policies sent through speed post on 31.01.2013 and 21.06.2013 to complainant (as revealed by endorsement on two parts of Ex.C-1) and as such certainly complainant got knowledge of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies in question in 2013 itself.  However, this complaint filed on 29.07.2015 that is after lapse of two years of the policies and as such virtually complainant acquiesced with the terms and conditions thereof.  Proposal forms Ex.Op1/2, Ex.OP1/4, Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/7 alongwith Form No.60 Ex.OP1/8, Most Important Documents Ex.OP1/9, the Customer Identification Form Ex.OP1/10, Relationship declaration form Ex.OP1/11, Form No.61 Ex.OP1/12 and agriculture Q-3.3 form Ex.OP1/13 were submitted by the complainant under her signatures by mentioning the date of birth and other particulars of address with mobile number and thereafter acceptance of those proposal forms, the policies were issued and sent to complainant through letters Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/5 on 31.01.2013 and 21.06.2013 and as such in view of production of the policies in question by complainant herself, there remains no dispute that actually these policies were received by complainant herself in 2013 itself.  Despite all this complainant did not opt to exercise option of canceling the policies within 15 days of free look period and as such now complainant debarred from claiming that the policies in question were not purchased by her.  It is not a case of mis-sale of policies itself because complainant being educated lady put signatures on the above referred documents in the language, in which those have been executed.  An educated person definitely knows that as and when an FDR is issued by a bank, then the same is received by concerned at earliest.  After receipt of the documents of FDRs, one is supposed to go through the contents thereof and on finding the documents not to be issued as per his/her desire, complaint is bound to be lodged with the concerned at earliest.  Keeping in view this general conduct expected from a man ordinary prudence like complainant, if at all policy document Ex.C-1 in two parts, would not have been issued as per wish of complainant and her father, then they in 2013 itself would have lodged protest qua issue of policies in question against their wishes.  That protest not shown to be lodged at all and as such inference is obvious that actually complainant acquiesced with the act of OPs in issue of policies in question.    

9.       The observations recorded by Hon’ble Apex Court of the Country in 3 cases titled as Oriental Insurance Company V. Sony Cheriyan, II(1999) CPJ 13 (SC) =VI (1999) SLT 565 = II (1999) ACC 196 (SC) = (1999) 6 SCC 451; National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC) = II (2007) ACC 28 (SC) = IV (2007) SLT 102 = 2007-258 (2.3.2007) (SC); and United India Insurance Co. V. Harchandrai Chandan Lal, IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC) = V (2004) SLT 876 = (2005) ACJ 570 (SC) has its essence in terms that the insurance policy between the insured and the insurer represents a contract between these parties and the terms of the policy to govern this contract.  This infact is the ratio decedendi of case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopanaboina Sathyam & Ors. Decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2014 (1) CPJ 198.  In view of this legal position, case of the parties to be governed by all the clauses of Ex.C-1 (in two parts). 

10.     In case of Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan V. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994 (1) CPR 396, it has been held that if fraud is alleged, then it is desirable that the complainant should be directed to approach Civil Court because investigation about fraud required to be done by that Court.  In view of the deep investigation being required qua allegations of fraud, the complainants, if advised may approach the Civil Courts.

11.     Policy in question was duly licensed by IRDA, so IRDA Regulations of 2013 to come to the rescue of complainant, because payment after due deduction has not been made as per these regulations.  Deficiency in service is to this extent alone.  

12.     The complainant has paid total Rs.3,00,000/- for the policies in question.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for surrender value only, as per specifications of IRDA, 2013.

13.     In the present complaint, no fund value or the policy account value is mentioned by the OPs, on whom the onus was to supply the same.  In the absence of anything to the contrary, we are constrained to take fund value/policy account value from the total premium paid by the complainant.

14.     In the present case, the complainant has paid one premium of Rs.1,00,000/- of one policy and Rs.2,00,000/- on the other policy and has not paid the premium thereafter and such the policies in question have lapsed.

15.     So, the claim for the refund of the amount deposited by the complainant under the terms of the policy is unsustainable in the eyes of law.  However, the complainant is entitled for surrender value as per IRDA Regulations 2013, which came into force on 18.02.2013,  but payment of the same can be made on completion of lock-in period i.e. of five years of the said policies as envisaged by aforesaid Regulations.  The case of the complainant is squarely covered under aforesaid regulations and the period of five years is to come to an end in January 2018 qua one policy and in June 2018 qua the other policy and as such complainant will be entitled to the refund of the surrender value after lapse of said period of five years only. 

16.     In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.           

17.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 07.01.2016                                                         

 

 

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G. K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President