Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/205/2016

M.L. Kaushik - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/205/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	22/03/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	24/01/2017

 

 

 

 

 

M.L. Kaushik (Earlier R/o Kothi No.4, Old Officers Colony, Ambala), Now R/o House No. 2522, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

 

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, (Earlier at SCO 139-140), Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh), Now at SCO 119-120, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 43, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

……… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.S. PANESAR              PRESIDENT

                MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. S.C. Thatai, Advocate.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased a HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium Policy. The annual premium of the Policy was fixed at Rs.10,740/- and the term of the Policy was 13 years. The date of commencement of the said Policy was 1.1.2004 and the last premium was to be paid on 01.01.2016. The sum assured in the said Policy was Rs.1,50,000/-. The Complainant paid the premium regularly and accordingly, paid the last premium on 1.1.2016. It has been averred that since the Complainant was in dire need of money, therefore, he approached the Opposite Party, through his authorized agent namely, Mr. Angrej Singh, to surrender the policy. The Opposite Party intimated the surrender value to be Rs.1,96,865/- along with the documents required for surrender, vide letter dated 19.01.2016.  The Complainant gilled in all the required documents and signed at the required placed along with cancelled Cheque and directed Mr. Angrej Singh to hand over the same to the Opposite Party and get the amount credited into the account of the Complainant. The authorized agent of the Complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party and handed over all the documents, but to the utter surprise and shock of the Complainant, the Opposite Party insisted that the Complainant should come present himself to surrender the policy, only then the policy can be surrendered. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, has pleaded that the authorized agent of the Complainant Sh.Angrej Singh was neither having any authority to fill up payout evaluation form nor he brought duly filled NEFT mandate form and original cancelled Cheque leaf, bank passbook or bank statement. Therefore, it was not possible for the Opposite Party to accept the surrender the policy from him. Moreover, the original policy was never deposited by the Complainant with the Opposite Party. The personal appearance of the Complainant was insisted upon because of the policy of the company dated 4.7.2011 (Ex.OP-4). Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for Parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed by the Complainant.

 

7.       The Complainant has filed the present Complaint seeking the surrender value of the policy, prematurely. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties apprised this Forum that during the pendency of the instant Complaint, the Policy in question has matured on 1.1.2017. In this backdrop, we are of the considered view that instead of surrender value, the Complainant needs to be paid the maturity value of the policy in question. 

 

8.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]  To pay the maturity value to the Complainant as on 1.1.2017 on submission of requisite documents i.e. policy document duly discharged, valid and self attested copies of Identity and Residence Proof, and original cancelled Cheque leaf along with details of the account,   either from the Complainant or his authorized representative;

 

[b] Pay Rs.2,500/- towards costs of litigation;

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the maturity amount from the date it was payable i.e. 1.1.2017, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [b] above.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24^th January, 2017                                             

                                                           Sd/-                                     

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-                                    

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-                                     

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”