Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1086/2015

Hardev Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Aulakh

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1086

                                                Instituted on:    17.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       20.04.2016

 

Hardev Kaur  aged about 57 years wife of Pargat Singh resident of Police Line now at Hareri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: 1^st Floor, Adjoining Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Office, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Aulakh, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri SS Punia, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Smt. Hardev Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is having a saving bank account with the OP number 2 and as such approached the OP number 2 for making a Fixed Deposit (FD) of Rs.1,00,000/- and for that the employees of the OP number 2 got the signature on various documents in order to issue the FDR and the complainant demanded the FDR from the officials of the Op number 2, but they told that the same may be collected after 2/3 days.  It is further averred in the complaint that after about five days, the complainant again approached the OP number 2 for issuance of the original FD, then they apprised that the same will be sent at his address, but the same was not received.  It is further averred that after a few days, the complainant received a policy bearing number 16933253 from OP number 1, from where the complainant came to know that the OP number 2 in connivance with the OP number 1 has invested the amount of the complainant in a policy instead of FDR.  The complainant immediately approached the OPs and asked them to cancel the policy, who assured that they will cancel the policy and will get the amount refunded within one month, but the same was never received despite repeated visits of the complainant. As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to cancel the policy in question and to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant approached the OP number 1 in the month of July 2014 for the purchase of a policy of SL Pro Growth Super II and for  the same submitted all the documents and signed the proposal form after admitting and understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant made the payment of this policy through his bank and the said policy was for a period of 15 years with annual premium of Rs.99,999/-  and the next premium of the policy was due on 2 July, 2015, but the complainant failed to pay the same, due to which the policy of the complainant was discontinued and risk cover was withdrawn.  It is stated that the complainant cannot make the Ops liable for any lapse. It is stated that the complainant is in hand in gloves with the OP number 2 and he had concocted a false story.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 2,  legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, the allegations of the complainant have been denied. It is stated that the complainant never approached the OP for making any FD, so the question of handing over the FD to the complainant at his residential address does not arise.  It is stated that it is a matter of record that the complainant received policy number 16933253 from OP number 1 and the complainant had invested the money with his free will.  It has been averred further in the written reply that after receiving the request of the complainant for cancellation of the above said policy, the OPs immediately without any delay forwarded the same to OP number 1. If the policy in question has not been cancelled, then it is the matter between OP number 1 and the complainant.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 copy of policy, Ex.Op1/2 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.Op2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the complainant and the Op number 2 that the complainant is having a saving bank account with the OP number 1.

 

7.             In the present case, the complainant has submitted that he is the consumer of OP number 2 as he was maintaining a saving bank account with it.  In order to make a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- the complainant had visited the OP number 2, but instead of making the FD, the OP number 2 invested the amount in their bank’s insurance company i.e. OP number 1 and issued the policy, which the complainant never intended to purchase.  It is further contended that on receipt of the policy, the complainant moved an application to the OP number 2 i.e. bank for cancellation of the policy, but the policy was not cancelled and as such, the Ops are deficient in service.

 

8.             In the written reply, the Op number 1 has denied the allegations of the complainant and has further submitted that the complainant and OP number 2 are hand in gloves and no intimation for the cancellation of the policy was ever received by OP number 1 and hence, the OP number 1 is not deficient in rendering service.

 

9.             In the written reply, OP number 2 has admitted that the complainant had approached OP number 2 for cancellation of the policy and the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy was forwarded to OP number 1, as such there is no fault of OP number 2. 

 

10.           After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main question in the present complaint is with regard to the purchasing of the policy in question and whether the complainant had requested for cancellation of the policy as per the free look period mentioned in the policy.  The counsel for OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant had never given any request for the cancellation of the policy, whereas the counsel for the complainant has contended that the request was submitted to OP number 2.  It was the OP number 2 who got the signatures of the complainant for the policy on the pretext that the FD is being issued for Rs.1,00,000/- and the request for the cancellation of the policy was also given to OP number 2.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has admitted having received the request for the cancellation of the policy and has also admitted that the same was forwarded to the OP number 1 for the cancellation of the policy.  The OP number 2 has clearly mentioned in the written reply that ‘after receiving the request of cancellation of above said policy from the complainant, the answering opposite party immediately without any delay forwarded the request of cancellation of policy in question to the OP number 1. If the policy in question has not been cancelled, then it is the matter between the opposite party number 1 and complainant.’ It is also admitted by OP number 2 in the affidavit Ex.Op2/1 that the complainant submitted a request for cancellation of the policy which was forwarded to OP number 1.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they withheld the proposal form submitted by the complainant for issuance of the policy in question and why they did not produce the same on record.  As such, it is clear that the complainant had only opted to issue FDR for Rs.1,00,000/- and not the policy, as issued by the OPs.

 

11.           On perusal of the documents on the record, we find that the complainant and the OP number 1 both have placed the copy of the policy in question and the same is OP1/1.  The very first page of this policy contains the name of the agent and name is of OP number 2 i.e. HDFC Bank.  So, now, the question arises that if the OP number 2 could get the policy issued then there is nothing wrong if the complainant submitted his request for the cancellation of the policy with the OP number 2, bank, because it is the OP number 2 who had got the signatures of the complainant for the lucrative commission offered by OP number 1 to OP number 2, otherwise the name of the OP number 2 would not have been mentioned in the policy.  So, if the OP number 1 had not cancelled the policy, then it is the fault of both OPs number 1 and 2.   It is against the common justice that the OP number 1 could issue the policy on the instance of OP number 2, but had not cancelled the policy, whereas the Op number 2 had specifically admitted that the cancellation request was submitted to OP number 1 for the cancellation of the policy.  So, in the light of above discussion, we find that the Ops are not only deficient in rendering service, but have also indulged in unfair trade practice and accordingly, we find it to be a case of clear cut deficiency in service.

 

12.           In the light of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 1 and 2. who are jointly and severally liable to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 3.7.2014 till realisation. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

13.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member