Order No. 14 dt. 03/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant in the 1.7.12 issued a cheque of Rs.50,000/- for HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan, main benefit sum assured Rs.3,21,430/-, premium amount of Rs.49,999/-, terms 10 years and the premium paid yearly and as per the advice of the agent the form was filled up. The o.ps. sent a letter to the complainant that the proposal has been accepted and the policy will be sent within 10 days and the said communication was made on 11.7.12. Subsequently the complainant informed the o.ps. that she did not receive the policy. But the o.ps. informed the complainant that the policy was delivered on 21.7.12. The complainant thereafter sent several letters and demanded the amount paid by her. Subsequently the complainant sent another letter demanding the amount since she was not agreeable to the proposal in respect of the said policy and o.ps. refused to pay any amount to the complainant. In view of such unfair trade practice adopted by o.ps. the complainant filed this case praying for return of the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.9000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant after understanding and being satisfied with the proposal form applied for HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan and o.ps. accordingly issued a policy in favour of the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.49,999/- payable for 7 years. The said original policy was duly dispatched to complainant on 28.7.12 which was duly received. The every policy document as per 6(2) Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest Regulations 2002 contains an option to return the policy if the policy holder is not satisfied within its free look period and accordingly after receiving he said policy the complainant did not write anything to o.ps. for cancellation within free look and as such, it can be presumed that she was satisfied with the policy. Subsequently on 12.10.12 complainant sent an e-mail alleging non receipt of the policy documents which was replied by o.ps. on 8.11.12 and o.ps. informed the complainant that in case the policy is not traceable then some documents are to be submitted by the complainant for issuance of duplicate policy. In spite of receiving the said e-mail complainant did not take any step and ultimately filed this case making wildly allegations against the o.ps.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant applied for the policy under the o.ps.
- Whether the policy was sent to the complainant.
- Whether the complainant received the said policy.
- Whether the complainant can get back the amount paid by her and the policy can be discontinued by her.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that that on the basis of the proposal form the complainant applied for obtaining a policy in respect of HDFC SL Classic Assurance Plan and accordingly she paid Rs.50,000/- and the said policy was not sent to the complainant in spite of repeated requests made by complainant. Subsequently the complainant sent several e-mails and o.ps. informed the complainant that duplicate policy can be issued after providing some documents. Since there is an option in case of non continuation of the policy there must be free look period and the said option is to be exercised within 15 days from the receipt of the policy but complainant could not get that opportunity and by adopting unfair trade practice o.ps. had shown that the policy was received by one Pulin Das but not the complainant, therefore complainant should be given an opportunity to get back the amount paid by her and by declaring that the o.ps. adopting unfair trade practice and she should be compensated adequately.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that from the proposal for it can be found that the address provided by complainant the proposal form was sent and the same was received by one Person and the same was certainly handed over to complainant but the said fact had been suppressed and in order to manufacture this case complainant has falsely stated that she did not receive the policy. It generally happens in case of multistoried building complex the owner of the flat owners are not available and the caretakers are generally given authority to receive the letters on behalf of the addressee, accordingly here in this case the policy was sent to the addressee and the same was received by one Pulin Das and the same was certainly handed over to complainant. In order to suppress the said fact complainant deliberately sent some e-mails, those were replied and o.ps. agreed to provide the duplicate policy after providing of some certain documents but complainant instead of providing those documents filed this case claiming the return of the amount as well as compensation which is not at all feasible.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that complainant filled in the form of HDFC SL Assurance Plan and she provided address whereby she mentioned her address “Block CK-P 801-30 K.C. Dey Sarani, New Alipore, Rasoi Factory, Kolkata-700053” and the policy was sent in the same address and the same was received on 28.2.12. The name of the person who put his signature on the acknowledgement receipt was mentioned as Pulin Das, he must be the caretaker of the said building and generally the flat owners do not allow the outsiders and accordingly the caretaker received the said letter containing the original policy and the same was certainly handed over to the complainant and the complainant in order to suppress the said fact falsely sent some e-mails to o.ps. for the purpose of getting back the amount and also for compensation with the allegations that there was unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. The complainant had the opportunity to return the policy within free look period and since she failed to avail of that opportunity manufactured the case by making false allegations against the o.ps. that unfair trade practice was adopted by o.ps.
Considering all these aspects we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.59/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
