Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/152

Prem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Prem Kumar

19 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      152

Date of Institution: 11.11.2014

Date of Decision :   19.05.2015

 

Prem Singh aged about 61 years, s/o S Surjit Singh Sodhi, r/o H. No. 133, Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                                 ...Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Regd Office, Ramon House, H T Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 through M D.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd 2^nd Floor, Master Trust Buildings SCO 19, Feroze Gandhi Market, Opp. Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana 141001 through Manager/Incharge.

3. Tannu Goyal d/o Sh Prem goyal, Park Avenue, Mohalla Talab, Faridkot.

4. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd Branch Office at Circular Road through Manager, Faridkot.

                                                              ...Opposite Parties(Ops)

 Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

               Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

 

Present: Sh Prem Kumar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Dinesh Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-1, 2 & 4.

             Claim against OP-3 relinquished by complainant.

 

(A K Mehta, President)

1                                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd etc/OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of matured value worth Rs 1,39,654/-with interest regarding policy of complainant and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased policy of OP-1 and 2 through OP-3/agent of Ops; that sum assured for the policy was Rs 1,03,783/-with annual premium of Rs 10,000/-with effective date of 17.01.2004 for ten years; that complainant paid all the premium instalments well in time and the last premium was paid in January 2013 and after maturity of policy, complainant approached OP-2 and OP-3 for collecting the maturity value of policy worth Rs 1,39,654/-, but instead of making payment of maturity value, Ops started compelling complainant to invest whole of the amount in other plans of the company, to which complainant is not ready and complainant refused to invest in any other plan; that Ops with malafide intention did not make payment of maturity value of policy to complainant and despite repeated requests made by complainant, Ops did not make payment of maturity value and forced complainant to invest in other plans of the company, which amounts to deficiency in service; that complainant also served legal notice to Ops, but with no effect and this act and conduct of Ops, amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs 10,000/- as litigation  expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                  The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 12.11.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4               On receipt of notice, the opposite parties no 1, 2 and 4 filed written statement taking legal objections that complaint is filed on mere conjectures and surmises and its contents are vexatious and mala fide as it makes false and frivolous allegations, which are an afterthought and no case is made out against answering Ops and therefore complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs; that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is based on false and baseless submissions and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and all the allegations levelled by complainant are an afterthought and are not maintainable; that complainant is a matured, educated person who has made the investment by his own free will, without any sort of pressure, coercion or misrepresentation, knowing fully well the specification and details thereof and complainant has also filled a declaration in this regard; that upon maturity of policy, complainant was duly intimated on his mobile number, but he could not be contacted and again SMSs were sent to complainant on his registered mobile and in addition to that, maturity intimation letter was duly sent to complainant on 26.11.2013, 10.03.2014, 21.04.2014, 5.5.2014, 5.06.2014,7.7.2014, 12.09.2014, 18.10.2014 and 4.12.2014 requesting the complainant to submit Annuity application form for disbursement of annual annuity income as per terms and conditions of the policy and he was duly informed that the vesting proceeds will lie with the company without accruing any interest from the date of vesting till the time, the company receives duly filled documents; that as per terms and conditions of the Policy, surrender of the policy is only possible before maturity date but the complainant did not approach the Ops for surrender before maturity date and as such, complainant was not entitled to refund of amount alleged by complainant, but inspite of aforesaid intimation letters, complainant did not come forward to submit the documents and to exercise the option as per terms and conditions of the policy and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. However, on merits, it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                            Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-17 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                   In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Amit Khanna Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-23 and then, closed the evidence.

7                        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

8                                   The Ld Counsel for complainant contended that on the solicitation of OP-3/agent, complainant purchased the insurance policy in question from Ops/Insurance Company. He contended that OP/Insurance Company issued policy Ex C-4, which was to commence from 17.01.2004 and duration of the policy was 10 years and premium was to be paid annually at the rate of Rs 10,000/- per year and final premium was to be paid on 17.01.2013 as mentioned in documents Ex C-4. He contended that the policy was to mature on 17.01.2014 and the maturity value was Rs 1,39,654/- as mentioned on letter Ex C-6 issued by the OP/Insurance Company to the complainant. He contended that complainant paid all the premium instalments annually and even wrote a letter Ex C-17 to the OP/Insurance Company showing his intention for payment of lumpsum maturing amount. He contended that complainant even requested OP/Insurance Company and even visited the OP/Insurance Company many times but OP/Insurance Company has not paid the maturity value of the Insurance Policy to the complainant so far. He contended that even a legal notice was served upon the OP/Insurance Company by the complainant which is Ex C-2 for payment of maturity amount but inspite of that, OP/Insurance Company has not paid the maturity value of the Insurance Policy and this conduct of OP/Insurance Company has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and ultimately, complainant had to file the complaint in hand. As such, complaint is required to be allowed and OP /Insurance Company is required to be directed to pay the maturity value of the insurance policy alongwith compensation as the delay in payment has been caused by Ops and Ops are liable to pay the compensation and litigation expenses.

9.                          Ld counsel for Ops admitted that complainant purchased the insurance policy in question from the Ops. He also admitted  the salient features of the insurance policy as contended by the complainant and contended that the policy stood matured in January 2014. He contended that Ops wrote letter dated 21.11.2013 Ex OP-3 intimating the complainant regarding the date of maturity of policy and the vesting proceeds amounting to Rs 1,39,654/- and complainant was asked to send the annuity plan, which complainant has not sent so far. He contended that even thereafter, complainant was served with reminder Ex OP-4 to OP-14 on various dates but inspite of that, complainant has not submitted the annuity plan due to which reason, annuity is not paid to the complainant out of maturity proceeds and as such, the fault lies on the part of complainant and not on the part of Ops and as such, complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

10                                   After going through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence and documents produced on the file by the parties, this Forum finds force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant. The policy in question is an admitted document in this case, which is proved on the file as Ex C-3. Plan of the policy is proved on the file as Ex C-4, which shows that the policy was to commence w.e.f 17.01.2004 and its duration was 10 years and premium was at the rate of 10,000/- annually and last premium was to be paid on 17.01.2013. It shows that the insurance policy was to mature in January 2014 and this fact  gets credence from the letter Ex C-6 issued by OP/Insurance Company to the complainant, which shows that the policy was to mature on 17.01.2014 and maturity proceeds was Rs 1,39,654/-. This information is mentioned in letter Ex C-6, corresponding letter of which is also proved by OP as Ex OP-3. Ex OP-3 shows that OP/Insurance Company also offered annuity plan to the complainant and asked him to apply for annuity plan. Instead of applying for annuity plan, complainant has written a letter Ex C-17 which is also proved by the Ops as Ex OP-2 disclosing his intent for lumpsum payment for maturity amount which shows that complainant did not intend to apply for annuity plan but inspite of that, OP/Insurance Company is giving reminders one after the other as Ex OP-4 to Ex OP-14 though OP/Insurance Company has received a letter Ex OP-2 dt 13.01.2014 in which complainant has requested for payment of lumpsum maturity value of the policy. It shows that the OP/Insurance Company was causing delay in payment of maturity value by just issuing reminders one after the other and was causing delay in the payment of maturity value to the complainant. Otherwise, when complainant has issued a letter dt 13.01.2014 Ex C-17 to OP/Insurance Company, there was no occasion for OP/Insurance Company to issue any reminder asking the complainant to file application for annuity plan, which shows that OP/Insurance Company was intentionally delaying the payment of maturity value to the complainant and as such, complainant is entitled to interest on the maturity value of the policy. The conduct of the OP/Insurance Policy must have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant as complainant was deprived of the use of maturity value of the Insurance Policy and as such, complainant is entitled to compensation on this account.

11                                   In the light of above discussion, the  complaint  succeeds  and  the  same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of complainant and against Ops and complainant is held entitled to recover Rs 1,39,654/- as maturity value of the insurance policy with interest at the rate of 9 % per anum from the date of maturity till its realization and OPs are also burdened with Rs 15,000/- as compensation to the complainant and complainant is also held entitled to Rs 2000/-as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt  of  the  copy  of  the   order  failing   which,           complainant shall  be entitled  to proceed  under  section  25  and                        27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated :19.05.2015

                               Member            Member                  President

 (P Singla)          (Parampal Kaur)     (A K Mehta)