Haryana

Ambala

CC/273/2018

Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Inss - Opp.Party(s)

03 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  273 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution   :    24.08.2018.

                                                          Date of decision      :    03.02.2020.

 

Darshan Singh resident of Village Kishan, Post Office Rattangarh, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                     Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 5^th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspac, Complex, Link Road, Malad (west), Mumbai 400 064 through its Authorized Signatory.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, HDFC SL Ambala-Nicholson Road Branch 1st Floor, Sudarshan Towers, Cross Road No.1, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt., Ambala-133001 through its Branch Manager.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following direction to them:-

1. To pay Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

Brief facts of the case are that the agent of the OPs namely Smt. Sarika Rani, approached the complainant and requested to take the HDFC Pension Insurance Plan of the OPs. She told the complainant that under the said plan he has to pay Rs.Two Lacs, annually for two years and after 5 years he will get Rs.10,41,452/-. On 02.11.2011, he purchased the policy bearing No.14704131. On 03.11.2011, he paid first instalment of premium of Rs.2,00,000/- and thereafter paid Rs.2,00,000/- as second instalment on 02.11.2012 to the OPs. After completion of five years he approached the local office i.e. OP No.2 to get the maturity amount. The official of the OP No.2 told him that under the said policy the premium paying term was for 5 years and maturity period was of 10 years and the said official of the OP No.2 refused to pay the maturity amount. He got shocked to know about this fact and requested the said official to cancel the policy and to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- paid by him as premium alongwith interest @ 18% per annum interest from the date of its deposit. But the official of the OP No.2 had flatly refused to pay the said amount. He also got shocked to know that the OPs have granted sum assured only for a sum of Rs.10,41,452/- in lieu of the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- in five yearly instalments and that amount will be payable after 10 years. If a person deposit Rs.10 Lakh in Fixed Deposit term for the period of 10 years, then the interest accrued thereon will be approximately Rs.90,000/- which is higher than the sum assured granted by the Insurance Company. The terms and conditions were not explained to the complainant by the agent of the OPs, in order to gain commission. Complainant served a legal notice dated 26.07.2017 upon the OPs, but of no avail. By not paying the claim amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and have filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no locus standi and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it is stated that the policy in question was issued after receiving the duly filled in and signed proposal form from the complainant. Thus the allegation of the complainant that policy was issued to him by misrepresentation is false. The OP never told the complainant to pay premium only for two years, rather policy was for a term of 10 years and the lock-in period to pay the premium was five years. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.10,41,452/- alongwith other benefits. The complainant could have returned the policy within the free look period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but said option was not exhausted, it amounts to acceptance of the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant had paid only two premiums i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- each for the year 2011 & 2012. Besides the sum assured amount other benefits were also payable as mentioned in the Schedule of Benefits of the policy in question. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the agent of the OPs had sold the policy in question to the complainant by misrepresentation, therefore directions be issued to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- which the complainant had paid to the OPs in two equal instalments of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the year 2011 & 2012.

                   The Ld. counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the policy in question was issued to the complainant after receipt of duly filled in and signed proposal form from the complainant and the complainant has falsely alleged that the policy in question was issued by misrepresentation. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy complainant had to pay premium of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum continuously for five years and the term of the policy was of 10 years having sum assured Rs.10,41,452/-. Out of five instalments, complainant had paid only two instalments, therefore as per terms and conditions of the policy nothing is payable to him.

                   From the perusal of the Proposal Form Annexure OP/1, it is evident that the policy in question is a Traditional Single Life Insurance Policy. It is further evident that same has duly been filled in and signed by the complainant. The policy in question was issued by the OPs on the basis of said proposal form, therefore this contention of the complainant that OPs had sold the policy in question by misrepresentation is not tenable, hence, rejected. In the letter dated 10.11.2011, Annexure OP/6, it is mentioned that if the complainant is not satisfied with the policy in question, then he can cancel the same within the free look period i.e. 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy, but complainant had not opted for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount paid by him, which shows that he accepted the policy in question by abiding to the terms and conditions of the policy in question. In term No.5 of the terms and conditions, Annexure C-1, it is categorically mentioned that if any premium remains unpaid 15 days after the due date during the first three years of the policy, the policy will be altered to lapse status and no benefits would be payable. The company may choose, at its sole discretion, to offer a discretionary surrender value. Meaning thereby, the lock-in period to pay the premium is for minimum three years, whereas the complainant had paid only two instalments, as such the policy got lapsed and the same was not got revived. Since the policy in question got lapsed due to not payment of the remaining instalments of the premium by the complainant, therefore as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, he is not entitled to get any benefit.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :03.02.2020.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President