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

========

Ms. Kamaljit Kaur d/o Sh.Prem Chand Guru, #2165/2, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh 160047 (UT)

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 50-51, (SF), Sector 9-D, Chandgiarh 160017 (UT).

2]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 5^th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL            MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Harsh Manocha, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OPs

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         As averred, the father of the complainant purchased one Insurance Policy bearing NO.14452884 from OP Company on payment of Rs.20,000/-. The OP Company failed to send the policy documents at right place and to the right person, within the stipulated time.  This was brought to the notice of OP Company vide letter dated 24.8.2011 followed by reminder dated 23.9.2011. Thereafter, the OP informed to submit NEFT Mandate Form along with cancelled cheque for refund of premium amount, which was done, but inspite of that, the OPs neither sent the refund nor any communication.  The personal visit made to the Office of OP Company did not yield any result.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service.

2]       The OPs filed joint reply stating therein that though it is an admitted case of the complainant that the signatures shall not match and did not match, yet the OPs have considered her request and agreed to provide a refund of the policy by treating the same within free look-in period. It is also stated that the letter dated 24.8.2011 did not contain the signatures of the complainant/policy holder and the same was confirmed vide letter dated 13.9.2011.  Thereafter, the complainant was requested to provide necessary documentation as well as original policy documents.  It is further stated that the NEFT mandate also does not contain the signatures of the complainant as on the policy documents.  It is submitted that the OPs though were not in any manner duty bound to make the refund, as the signatures did not match on any policy cancellation request, yet they processed the same and offered the refund, which was refused by her even in the Forum.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying the allegations of the complainant, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]       Admittedly, the father of the complainant purchased the policy in question, from OPs, in the name of the complainant on payment of Rs.20,000/-. It is also admitted that the complainant got the said policy cancelled and received the refund of Rs.20,000/- from OPs, under protest. 

6]       The main grouse of the complainant is that when she did not receive the policy document & terms & conditions thereof, she wrote to the OPs for cancellation of the policy and refund of amount, but they did not make the payment and instead linger on the matter on one pretext or the other, forcing her to enter into unwanted litigation.  It is contended that the OPs had made the refund only after filing of the complaint before the Forum.

7]       On the other hand, the contention of the OPs is that considering the cancellation request, the complainant was requested to provide necessary documents and return the original policy, which she did not do.  It is also contended that her signature on the NEFT mandate Form do not match with that on the Policy documents, but inspite of that the refund was offered, which she refused and ultimately received under protest before the Forum.

8]       After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusing the record, it has been made out that the OPs delayed the refund on the ground that the signatures of the complainant, as on NEFT Mandate Form, did not match with that on other policy documents. The perusal of the documents on file reveal that the complainant somewhere signed as “Kamaljeet Kaur” and somewhere singed as “Kamaljit Kaur”.  This fact has also not been disputed by the complainant herself. 

9]       In our opinion, when there was difference in the signatures of the complainant, as in her cancellation request and other policy documents available with the OPs; therefore, the act of the OPs in asking the complainant to submit other documents & details to clarify the matter, was fully justified and legal.  Certainly, the OP Company or any other Financial Institute has to take due care and caution while refunding the money, in order to make sure that it goes to the right person. 

10]      Resultantly, judged from every angle and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out or attributed towards the OPs.  The complaint lacks merit.  Therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. The file be consigned.