THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 182-13
Date of Institution : 4.3.2013
Date of Decision : 19.2.2015
Shri Raghbir Singh S/o Sh. Bawa Singh, resident of Plot No. 39, Gali No.2, Hargobind Avenue, Majitha Road, Amritsar working in the office of SSP Majitha Tehsil Amritsar
.....Complainant
Vs.
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., HDFC SL Amritsar Mall Road Branch, 2nd Floor, Aventura Mall, 35-B, Mall Road, Amritsar 143001 through its branch manager or any other person competent to receive summons
HDFC Bank, Near Doaba Automobiles Branch, Court Road, Amritsar
.....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.Ajay Shanker,Adv
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Munish Kohli,Adv.
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Pardeep Singh Teji,Adv
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Raghbir Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he visited the HDFC Bank for getting FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but the officials of the said bank offered him to
-2-
obtain an insurance policy . As such the complainant agreed to invest the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the opposite party as one time investment instead of FDR. On receipt of said insurance policy, complainant was shocked to know that the premium of Rs. 99,999/- is for a term of 10 years instead of one time payment . As the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy therefore, he immediately submitted a letter against receipt with the opposite party requesting the company to refund the amount of premium as he was not interested to continue with the policy and the said request was made within the free look period of 15 days . However, instead of refunding the amount, the opposite party rejected the request of the complainant on the ground that the request for cancellation of the policy was not received within 15 days. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund amount of Rs. 99,999/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant showed his willingness in investing HDFC Saving Assurance Plan. The complainant had opted that plan by paying an annual premium of Rs. 99,999/-on 22.2.2012 for a term of 10 years. The complainant had duly signed a proposal form dated 22.2.2012 which was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the complainant and consequently policy was issued bearing No. 14959962 to the complainant. It was submitted that as the complainant is literate and well qualified person as such he is having full knowledge about the terms and conditions of the policy and he had signed all the requisite forms after fully understanding and admitting the terms and conditiions.It was submitted that before accepting the proposal, adequate information was provided to the complainant. The complainant is now taking a false plea that he had invested the said sum in the FDR and not in insurance policy. It was submitted that
-3-
policy documents were delivered to the complainant providing him a period of 15 days in which the complainant could have returned the policy by stating the reasons which the complainant did not do so. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that they do not deal in getting insurnace policies of any person. Both the opposite parties are different entitites having no concern with each other . Their offices are different, nature of business is different, their staff members are paid salaries from their own different concerns. It was submitted that it is not the liability of replying opposite party to refund the amount or cancelling the policy
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, letter dated 17.5.2012 Ex.C-2, letter dated 19.6.2012 Ex.C-3, cancellation of policy Ex.C-4, letter dated 29.2.2012 Ex.C-5, saving assurance policy Ex.C-6, schedule of benefit Ex.C-7, standard policy conditions Ex.C-8, first premium receipt Ex.C-9, policy at glance Ex.C-10, proposal form Ex.C-11, welcome letter Ex.C-12, standard policy conditions Ex.C-13 alongwith documents Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-16.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Harsimran Singh Ex.OP1/1, copy of application form Ex.OP1/2, declaration form Ex.OP1/3, illustration form Ex.OP1/4, consultant confidential form Ex.OP1/5, standard instruction Mandate Form Ex.OP1/6
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Sameer Kapoor,branch manager Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for all the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for all the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on
-4-
record by all the parties, it is clear that complainant got insurance policy from the opposite party on payment of Rs. 99,999/- as premium. The complainant alleges that he invested the amount in one time premium policy. But when the complainant received the policy documents, he found that the policy issued by the opposite party is for 10 years. The complainant then approached the opposite party as the complainant had option to return the policy for cancellation within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents. As the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, so he submitted a letter to the opposite party within free look period for the cancellation of the insurance policy and the refund of the amount. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in order to obtain HDFC Saving Assurance Plan (Policy). The complainant filled in the proposal form on 22.2.2012 Ex.OP1/2. In the said application/proposal form, it has been clearly mentioned that the policy term is for 10 years, the sum assured is Rs. 8,28,611/-, the premium amount is Rs. 99,999/- and the frequency of payment of premium is yearly. On the basis of the aforesaid proposal form , the opposite party issued policy bearing No. 14959962 to the complainant vide letter dated 29.2.2012 Ex.C-5 which was duly received by the complainant alongwith terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is literate and well qualified person. The complainant wrote letter for the cancellation of the policy for the first time on 7.5.2012 Ex.C-15. He also wrote letter dated 8.6.2012 Ex.C-14 and 13.7.2012 Ex.C-16 . Opposite party submitted reply to the complainant dated 17.7.2012 Ex.C-2 , dated 9.6.2012 Ex.C-3 in which the complainant was duly informed that as the requisite for cancellation of the policy submitted by the complainant was received after free look period of 15 days
-5-
from the date of receipt of the policy documents. So his request for cancellation of the policy cannot be accepted. Thereafter the complainant did not pay the premium which was due in February 2013 , as such the policy lapsed after one month grace period in March 2012. Thereafter the complainant never requested the opposite party for the renewal of the policy , as such the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the amount. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant in order to obtain insurance policy filled in proposal form/application form Ex.OP1/2 in which it has been categorically mentioned that the policy term is 10 years, premium payment term is also 10 years, premium payable is Rs. 99,999/-, payment of premium frequency is yearly and the sum assured is Rs. 8,28,611/-. On the basis of this proposal form , opposite party issued policy bearing No. 14959962 Ex.C-6 containing other documents including terms and conditions from Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-13, which was duly sent to the complainant vide letter dated 29.2.2012 Ex.C-5 which was duly received by the complainant as this policy has been produced by the complainant himself. This policy must have been received by the complainant within a week as the complainant has not mentioned the date of receipt of the policy documents. The complainant was fully aware and must have become aware on receipt of the policy that the policy is for 10 years , premium payment term is also 10 years, frequency payment of premium is yearly, the premium is Rs. 99,999/- and the sum assured is Rs. 8,28,611/-. The complainant had option, if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, to return the policy and request for its cancellation and refund of the amount of premium subject to certain permissible deductions, within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documednts. But the complainant did not do so within free look period of 15 days , from the date of receipt of the policy documents. However,
-6-
he wrote letter for the first time to the opposite party Ex.C-15 dated 7.5.2012 for the cancellation of the policy. No doubt he wrote another letter dated 8.6.2012 Ex.C-14 and 13.7.2012 Ex.C-11 in this regard but all these letters were written by the complainant to the opposite party after lapse of free look period of 15 days. The opposite party, therefore, submitted reply to the complainant Ex.C-3 dated 19.6.2012 , Ex.C-2 dated 17.7.2012 intimating the complainant that as his request for cancellation of the policy was beyond free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, so his request for cancellation of the policy cannot be accepted. Thereafter the complainant did not pay the second premium which was due in February 2013. As such the policy lapsed after a grace period of one month i.e in March 2013. The complainant even thereafter did not make any effort to get the policy renewed on payment of the premium due, as well as renewal charges, if any. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case LIC of India & Ors Vs. Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors. 2009(1) CLT 131 that where the policy has elapsed for non payment of premium , no efforts made by the complainant to revive the policy,held that fora cannot direct refund of any premium for the simple reason that risk stood covered for the period for which the premium had been paid. The insured cannot be given advantage of risk coverage as also of refund of premium. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble State Commission of UT Chandigarh in case Deep Singh Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.& Anr 2012(2) CLT 541.
10. In view of the above discussion, the complainant is not entitled to any refund from the opposite party as the opposite party has covered the life risk of the complainant during the period the policy remained inforce.
11. Resultantly we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies
-7-
of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
19.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
