Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/854/2015

Sheela Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Deepan Sharma

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/854/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	22/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17/02/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Sheela Devi, R/o Ward No.8, F.P. Jhirka, Mewat 123001 (Haryana), presently residing at H.No.613-A, Sec.46-A, Chandigarh.

 

….......... Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

[2]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra, India, through its Managing Director.

 

[3]  Avinash Kumar, Agent, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 139-140, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. [Deleted vide order dated 24.5.2016]

 

…............... Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. S.S. PANESAR             PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Deepan Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

            Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

            OP No.3 deleted.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Succinctly put, upon the representation and assurances of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant purchased three Polices bearing Nos. 12672811, 12671562 & 12728943, in her name, under HDFC Standard Life Sar Utha Ke Jeeyo one time investment plan, by depositing Rs.50,000/- each, during February and March, 2009 Policies Annexure C-1 colly). However, to her surprise, when the Opposite Parties called her during April, 2010, to pay the 2^nd installment of the said policies, she inquired from the OPs and learnt that the policies in question were in fact a regular premium policies for 10/15 years and not a onetime investment policy. Thereafter, upon the insistence of getting good returns along with interest, the Complainant paid three installments against the above said policies on 21.04.2010, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, with great difficulty, the Complainant somehow managed to pay the third installment against the two policies bearing No. 12671562 and No. 12672811. After making the payments against the aforesaid two policies, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for the refund of the said policies, but the Opposite Parties delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and eventually, refused to pay the principal amount along with interest. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, in view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 24.05.2016.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant did not exercise the free look option available to her to return/surrender the policies within 15 days, which signified her acceptance of the terms & conditions of the policies. It has been urged that out of the three policies, two policies were lapsed due to non-payment of premium for subsequent year and one policy bearing no.12728943 was surrendered by the Complainant for which she was paid an amount of Rs.62,628.83/- towards surrender value thereof. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

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

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record.

 

6.      On perusal of the Ex.OP-2 to OP-4, we find that the proposals/applications are duly signed by the Complainant herself and thereafter, the Policies were issued to the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant herself has also signed the mandate forms (Ex.OP-8 to OP-10) for direct debit instructing the Banker namely HDFC Bank to pay all the future premium against the said Policies to the Opposite Parties. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is a proof of undue influence, coercion or fraud, that she has read the document properly and understood it and only then she has affixed her signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. It is important to note that since the Complainant had the option to return/ surrender the Policies within a period of 15 days, but she had not exercised the said option, therefore, she cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Polices.

 

7.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

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

Announced

17^th February,2017                                           Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER