DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.335 of 16-08-2013
Decided on 06-12-2013
Darshan Kumar aged about 45 years S/o Ramji Dass R/o Ward No.11, Bara Nohre Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.
........Complainant
Versus
1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director, 1st and 2nd floor, SCO 119/120, Sector 43B, Mohali Road above IDBI Bank, Chandigarh-400025.
2.Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ground floor, Plot No.3038 A, Dalip Singh Walia Complex, Gurukashi Marg, Bathinda.
3.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director, Ramon House, Ht. Parekh Marg, 169 Backway Reclamation, Mumbai, Pin 400020. .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Narinder Singla, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the agents of the opposite parties Sonia and Deep Kumar, both employees of their Chandigarh branch talked to the complainant and assured him that on the payment of Rs.50,000/- per annum for 5 years, he would receive Rs.4,07,000/- + bonus + terminal bonus + accident benefits upto Rs.8 lacs and on natural death Rs.4 lacs. On the allurement of the opposite parties, the complainant agreed to purchase the abovesaid policy and deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque bearing No.429264 dated 2.11.2012. The agent of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on the various printed forms/blank papers/documents under bonafide impression, but he did not disclosed/read over and explained the contents/terms therein to him. The agent of the opposite parties also assured the complainant that the photocopies of all the printed forms would be sent to him. After few days, the complainant had received a message on his mobile that the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.15560781 and the same is dispatched on his address but till date he has not received any such policy. The complainant contacted the customer care and came to know that there is no such policy. The complainant immediately contacted Bathinda Branch i.e. opposite party No.2 and lodged the complaint vide complaint No.01000000202936 on dated 26.12.2012 and requested it to refund the amount paid by him, but to no effect. The complainant has also got sent a legal notice to the opposite parties and requested them to refund the amount paid by him with interest but despite that they have failed to send the abovesaid policy or refund the amount to him. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a w.e.f. 2.11.2012 besides cost and compensation.
2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact before this Forum that he has purchased the insurance policy bearing No.15560781 of his own accord & free will and submitted duly filled proposal form bearing No.S000016147216 and illustration of benefits for HDFC Savings Assurance Policy Schedule and accordingly the abovesaid policy has been issued to him. The complainant has received the policy documents but has filed the present complaint on the false grounds. The complainant has concealed these material facts and has presented a totally false and concocted story and is estopped from raising any objection at this stage especially after remaining under insurance cover for the relevant period, thus availing benefit of the insurance policy. To support their version the opposite parties have relied upon various authorities. The opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant himself approached their officials and accordingly the abovesaid policy has been issued to him. If the policyholder/complainant was not satisfied with the plan of the policy, he had every right to seek the cancellation of his policy within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but he never sought the cancellation of the policy even after the receipt of the policy in the year 2012 itself. The opposite parties denied that the complainant was made to talk to Sonia or Deep Kumar on the numbers mentioned by him and was assured that he would have to pay the premium of Rs.50,000/- p.a. for 5 years and would receive Rs.4,07,000/-, bonus, terminal benefits and accident benefits upto Rs.8 lacs and in case of natural death upto Rs.4 lacs. The policy documents were issued to the complainant vide overnite courier AWB No.6868701302 and the same was received/delivered to him on 3.12.2012. The opposite parties have also sent the reply to the allegations of the complainant vide letter dated 4.1.2013.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The learned counsel of the complainant submitted that the opposite parties induced the complainant to obtain the abovesaid policy by making false assurance regarding the life insurance, interest, repayment of money, bonus, terminal bonus, accident benefit, natural death coverage, etc., as such on their allurement, the complainant has purchased the policy in dispute, but the same has not been received by him. At the time of selling of the abovesaid policy the agent of the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers and on blank printed papers under bonafide impression and never read over the same to him. The agent of the opposite parties also assured the complainant that the photocopies of all the documents would be sent to him after duly filled by the company but till date no document has been received by him. The learned counsel of the complainant further submitted that the complainant has received a message on his mobile that the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.15560781 and the same is dispatched on his address but till date he has not received any such policy. The complainant contacted the customer care and came to know that there is no such policy. The opposite parties pleaded that they have sent the policy documents vide overnite courier AWB No.6868701302 and also pleaded the same was received/delivered to the complainant on 3.12.2012, but they have failed to produce any receipt or return receipt regarding the same as no such policy was ever sent to him. The learned counsel of the complainant further submitted that there is no courier service at Budhlada, where he resides and the address of Budhlada is duly mentioned in the policy, it shows that the opposite parties have failed to send the policy and filed the false reply. The documents produced by the opposite parties have been prepared on the blank papers that were taken from the complainant by their agent at the time of selling of the abovesaid policy. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and made written request for the refund of the amount alongwith interest and also told him regarding the non-receipt of the abovesaid policy but till date no satisfactory reply has ever been given by the opposite party No.2.
6. On the other hand the submission of the learned counsel of the opposite parties is that the complainant himself purchased the abovesaid policy by submitting duly filled proposal form, Ex.OP1/9, wherein he signed a declaration to the effect that he has understood its contents. The complainant even submitted the illustrations of benefits, therefore the allegations are false and baseless. In the proposal form on page No.1, the qualification of the complainant is mentioned as Graduation and signatures are in English, for this the opposite parties have taken the support of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as TATA AIG Vs. Gulzari Singh, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that 'A person who is educated and signed in English cannot take the plea of misrepresentation or ignorance regarding the contents of proposal form. Further as per 2010(1) RAJ 514 (SC), a person who signs a document is presumed to sign the same after knowing its contents. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy, in case only one year premium is paid there is no surrender value as surrender value accrues only if a minimum of 3 years premium is paid as per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy. The complainant has falsely denied the receipt of the abovesaid policy, whereas the same has been received by him on 3.12.2012 itself as per the receipt Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5. There is no rebuttal to the said receipt nor the complainant availed the option to seek the cancellation of the abovesaid policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same i.e. from 3.12.2012.
7. The first and foremost allegation of the complainant is that he has purchased the insurance policy on the allurement of the opposite parties, whereas a perusal of proposal form, Ex.OP1/9, shows that the complainant has himself opted for the abovesaid policy and at page No.1, he has filled his education qualification as 'Graduation' and signed the proposal form in English, meaning thereby after fully understanding the contents of the same, he has purchased the abovesaid insurance policy, thus there is no question of allurement on the part of the opposite parties. When the complainant himself signed the proposal form after fully understanding its contents, he cannot deny that he was not aware about the contents of the proposal form. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled TATA AIG General Insurance Company Vs. Gulzari Singh, Revision Petition No.1255 of 2009, decided on 26.2.2010, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that 'A person who is educated and signed in English cannot take the plea of misrepresentation or ignorance regarding the contents of proposal form.
The other allegation of the complainant is that he had received a message on his mobile that the opposite parties issued the policy bearing No.15560781 and the same is dispatched on his address but till date he has not received any such policy and he has specifically mentioned that 'there is no courier service at Budhlada, where he resides and the address mentioned in the policy, it shows that the opposite parties have failed to send the policy and filed the false reply'. Regarding this allegation the opposite parties particularly mentioned that all the policy documents have been sent to the complainant on his address vide overnite courier AWB No.6868701302 and the same was received/delivered to him on 3.12.2012. To support their version the opposite parties have placed on file Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5 which shows that the policy documents have duly been sent to the complainant. The contention of the complainant is that there is no courier service at Budhlada, but he has not placed on file any documentary evidence to show that no overnite courier service is available at his postal address.
8. As per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy, the surrender value accrues only if a minimum of 3 years premium is paid as per Clause 4 of the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy. But in the case in hand the complainant has paid only one premium of Rs.50,000/- and has not paid the second premium. Before paying the second premium of the abovesaid policy, the complainant has filed the present complaint, thus he is not entitled for any refund.
9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above as the complainant has not paid the premium for 3 years, so he is not entitled for any refund, thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
06-12-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
