DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.297 of 09-05-2014

Decided on 08-09-2015

Kiran Goyal W/o Ashok Kumar R/o #19256, Ward No.6, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, Tehsil & District, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office Ramon House, H.T Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020, through its Managing Director.

2.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Customer Service Centre, Ground Floor, 3038-A, Dlaip Singh Walia Complex, Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.O.P Garg, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Kiran Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the agent/official of opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and allured her about the benefit of the insurance policy of opposite parties. It was conveyed by the official that it is a single premium policy and she would get return of about 20% to 25% per annum and can withdraw the amount at anytime after 3 years, with interest and accrued benefits of the policy. It was assured that the complainant would remain assured for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and policy with terms and conditions would be supplied to her within a week. No other terms and conditions were communicated to the complainant, rather her signatures were obtained on blank papers, without intimating any of their contents.

3. It is alleged that upon assurance of opposite parties, the complainant deposited the premium of Rs.25,000/- as single premium on dated 17.5.2010 with opposite party No.2. Opposite parties intimated the complainant that the policy bearing No.13683317 has been allocated to her and its terms and conditions would be sent to her shortly.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant time and again approached opposite parties for supplying the original policy alongwith terms and conditions and to exercise her option/right to seek cancellation of policy within 15 days after receipt of the policy, in case the said terms and conditions were not acceptable to her, but to no effect.

5. It is also alleged that in the last week of May, 2013, the complainant approached opposite parties to refund the premium amount alongwith return of 20% to 25% as assured by them. Even otherwise since opposite parties have never supplied the policy or its terms and conditions, they were bound to return the premium amount alongwith return, but they refused to supply any policy or its terms and conditions with the copy of proposal form or to refund the amount, rather it was intimated to her that they had issued a 10 years policy and she is bound to pay the premium of Rs.25,000/- every year till the expiry of the policy. It was also informed that opposite parties had invested the money of the complainant in shares/units although it was never disclosed to her. It is further alleged that from the act and conduct of opposite parties, it is clear that they did not want to refund the amount alongwith accrued benefits as assured to the complainant.

6. It is further alleged that opposite parties have illegally withheld the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest/return and other benefits of the complainant. By this act, opposite parties have caused great mental agony, pains and suffering to the complainant. Opposite parties have failed to provide service.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.25,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, interest/return 20% to 25% per annum in addition to Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

7. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In written version opposite parties raised the preliminary objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in this complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination, which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any lies only in the Civil Court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and opposite parties and is not entitled for any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that she has purchased HDFC Savings Assurance Policy bearing No.13683317 of her own free will, voluntarily, after understanding its various terms and conditions and never opted for seeking cancellation of policy within the free look period of 15 days of receipt of policy, which was sent to her through Blue Dart courier vide POD No.44030816535 on 24.5.2010 and same was received by her on 28.5.2010. As such, the complainant is estopped from raising any objections at this stage. The complaint is time barred. The complainant is not consumer of opposite parties and complainant has no locus-standi to file this complaint.

8. On merits also, opposite parties controverted all the material averments. As per opposite parties, the complainant completely understood various terms and conditions of the policy and agreed to same voluntarily, of her own accord and free will and even submitted duly signed quotation/illustration of benefits and proposal form, wherein it is clearly mentioned that policy in question is with a term of 10 years with yearly premium of Rs.25,000/- and sum assured of Rs.2,09,422/-. The complainant received the policy documents, but she never availed free look period option to get refund within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. It is denied that the policy alongwith terms and conditions was not sent or communicated to the complainant. It is further denied that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on any blank papers without disclosing their contents. However, it is admitted that the complainant has deposited the premium of Rs.25,000/-, but it is denied that she deposited this amount as a single premium. As per opposite parties, the policy lapsed for non-payment and no amount is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. After controverting all other averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

10. In support of her version, the complainant tendered into evidence copy of first premium receipt, (Ex.C1) and her own affidavit dated 25.7.2014, (Ex.C2) and submitted written arguments.

11. Opposite parties tendered into evidence photocopy of insurance policy, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Amit Khanna dated 11.9.2014, (Ex.OP1/2); copies of personal detail, (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/4); copy of confidential report, (Ex.OP1/5) and copy of voter card etc., (Ex.OP1/6) and submitted written arguments.

12. After permission from this Forum, the complainant got examined record from Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert and placed on record his report.

13. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.

14. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his version as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the categorical stand of the complainant is that she was not supplied policy containing terms and conditions. Opposite parties were to prove not only dispatch of the policy containing terms and conditions, but it was also to be proved that the policy was actually received by the complainant. No record of dispatch of the policy is produced. No other record is produced to prove that the policy was supplied to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not bound by terms and conditions of the policy. As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of amount deposited by her alongwith interest and other accrued benefits. The complainant was told that it is a single premium policy. Opposite parties have not brought on record any document to prove that the complainant was ever intimated regarding due premium required to be deposited by her. The complainant has also deposed that her signatures were obtained on some blank papers. Of-course, opposite parties have brought on record proposal form and other documents stated to be signed by the complainant. The complainant has got examined the questioned signatures from Anil Kumar Gupta, his report is on file, but he has categorically opined that the examination of alleged questioned signatures Q1, Q3, Q5 to Q10 reveals inconsistency in the writing characteristics and it is concluded that the signatures mark Q1, Q3, Q5 to Q10 are forged signatures by copy forgery and are not similar in characteristics. Therefore, the expert report has also proved that opposite parties have relied upon forged documents. As such, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties stands fully proved and complaint be accepted.

15. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2008(2) C.P.J. 110 titled as Padra Taluka Prathmic Shikshkon NI Co-operative Credit Society and Consumer Society Limited Vs. Mukesh Shah and Anr., wherein it was observed that when the money was deposited without time limit, opposite parties were liable to pay interest alongwith compensation and limitation period starts from date of refusal to pay amount.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has not approached with clean hands before this Forum. The complainant has concocted a false story and concealed the material facts. The complainant herself has placed on record first premium receipt, (Ex.C1), which itself shows that it is not a single premium policy, but this receipt is only a first premium receipt. This receipt is dated 21.5.2010 and premium was adjusted w.e.f. 17.5.2010. This premium receipt was issued to the complainant alongwith policy and she has not produced the entire record. Opposite parties have placed on record copy of policy as (Ex.OP1/1), which includes copy of this receipt also. The entire terms and conditions were mentioned in this policy and as per Condition No.4, if the policyholder pays premiums for a continuous period of 3 years, the guaranteed minimum surrender value is payable. It was also mentioned that otherwise surrender value is '0' in respect of premiums paid in the first year. The complainant admittedly paid premium for first year only, as such her surrender value was worked as '0'. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

17. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the report of handwriting expert is not going to serve any purpose. The complainant has admitted that she has purchased the policy. The complainant has placed on record first premium receipt. The questioned signatures were of the year 2010, whereas the standard signatures are of the year 2014 .With the passage of time, some variations are bound to occur. One can also intentionally vary signatures in an attempt to avoid liability. Moreover in the report, the expert has rather opined that the signatures mark Q2 and Q4 are similar with the standard signatures. Therefore, from the report of expert it is not proved that the documents produced by opposite parties are forged. In case, the complainant has not received the policy containing terms and conditions, she was not expected to remain silent for such a long period. Therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn for this reason also.

18. To support his version, learned counsel for opposite parties has relied upon in case cited National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mehboob Khan, I (2012) CPJ 267 (NC).

19. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

20. The contract of insurance originate with filling up proposal form. Therefore, first point to be determined is whether the proposal form was filled up by the complainant. The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that her signatures were obtained in the blank papers. In this way, the complainant has impliedly admitted her signatures on some forms/documents. The complainant was not having reason to put her signatures on blank forms. Opposite parties or their agent has no reason for obtaining the signatures of the complainant on blank papers. The report furnished by Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert does not fully prove the case of the complainant. The questioned signatures were of the year 2010 and standard signatures were of the year 2014. The science of handwriting is not perfect science. Even otherwise, with the passage of time, some variations in the signatures of the person were bound to occur. More so, when a person is not in the habit of frequent signatures. Opposite parties have placed on record affidavit dated 13.4.2010 alongwith confidential report of the complainant. Vide this letter, the complainant has deposed that she has no education qualification. So in these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the complainant is not in habit to put signatures frequently. Moreover Anil Kumar Gupta has examined 10 questioned signatures. He has deposed that questioned signatures Q2 and Q4 have been written with similar writing fingers. In this way, as per report of handwriting & finger print expert questioned signatures mark Q2 and Q4 are similar. The questioned signatures mark Q2 and Q4 are on the proposal form. Therefore, it stands proved that the proposal form was filled up at the instance of the complainant and signed by herself. The complainant has alleged that she was verbally told that it is a single premium policy, but documents relied upon by the complainant belies her version. The complainant has placed on record first premium receipt dated 21.5.2010. In case of single premium policy, it cannot be mentioned as first premium receipt. The documentary evidence has to prevail upon oral evidence. Therefore, it is to be accepted that the complainant was aware that the policy is not a single premium policy.

21. The allegations of the complainant that she was not supplied with copy of policy are also devoid of any merits. The complainant has herself produced first premium receipt dated 21.5.2010. As per opposite parties, this receipt alongwith policy was sent to the complainant. In case, the complainant has not received the policy containing terms and conditions, she was not to remain silent for such a long time. From this also, it can be inferred that the complainant was duly supplied with policy containing terms and conditions. Admittedly, the complainant has paid only one premium. As per Condition No.4 of terms and conditions of policy, if premium is paid for continuously 3 years only, then guaranteed minimum surrender value is payable and surrender value is '0' in respect of premiums paid in the first year. The complainant is bound by terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. As per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was not entitled for any surrender value in case of premium is paid only for one year.

22. For the reasons recorded above, the only conclusion is that the claim of the complainant is without any merits. Therefore, we have no option except to dismiss this complaint. As such, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.

23. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

24. 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:-

08-09-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member