DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 369 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 16.08.2011 Date of Decision : 30.08.2012 -------------------------------- Jagjit Kaur, r/o H.No.2048, Phase-7, Mohali. ---Complainant VERSUS [1] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 139-140, Ground Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head (Operations). [2] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited, 5th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064, through its Managing Director. [3] HDFC Bank, Phase-7, Mohali, District Mohali, through its Manager (Relationship) ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. H.S. Parwana, Counsel for Complainant. Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant had a savings bank account with HDFC Bank, Phase-7, Mohali. The Complainant on one occasion on her visit to her bank met Sh. Vibhu Grover, Relationship Manager of HDFC Bank Limited and impressed upon the Complainant to purchase a savings plan and invest her money in it. The Complainant was told it would be a one time investment which will remain with the insurance company for a period of three years and after three years the Complainant will be entitled to withdraw the amount along with bonus and profit accrued. The Complainant agreed to invest Rs.60,000/-. The same was paid by way of cheque drawn in favour of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited (Opposite Party No.2). A receipt of this amount dated 20.12.2007 is annexed as Annexure C-1. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party instead of putting her money in a one time saving plan, had issued an insurance policy for a period of 10 years with the annual premium of Rs.60,000/- each and was shocked on the demand of Rs.60,850/- vide letter dated 28.01.2010 from the Opposite Party (Annexure C-2). The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party numbered as 0100000092678 as per letter dated 19.2.2010 of the Opposite Party (Annexure C-3). However, the Complainant was compelled to make payment of 2nd installment of Rs.60,000/-, which was paid under compelling circumstances on repeated reminders from the side of the Opposite Parties. After the deposit of 2nd installment Complainant inquired about the status of the Policy subscribed in her name. The Complainant was shocked to note that the Opposite Parties claimed that she would have to pay another eight installments of Rs.60,000/- each to derive the maximum benefits of the policy subscribed for. The Complainant again received a letter dated 26.2.2010 through which another demand of Rs.61,510/- was made. The same is annexed as Annexure C-4 with the complaint. The Complainant once again lodged another complaint registered under the number 010000005022 as per letter dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure C-5). The Complainant received a reply to this complaint through their communication dated 21.4.2010 (Annexure C-6). The Complainant was again sent a letter dated 19.6.2010 from the side of the Opposite Parties demanding a deposit of Rs.64,030/- in order to revive the Policy, and on its non-payment the policy was supposed to lapse. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for the refund of Rs.1.20 lacs deposited by her and alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainant claims that the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate her by releasing the amount of Rs.1.20 lacs along with interest @18% per annum, together with a sum of Rs.1.00 lac on account of physical and mental harassment, as well as Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation. The complaint of the complainant is supported by her detailed affidavit. 2. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Harsimran Singh, Zonal Legal Executive, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable as the same being an attempt to misguide & mislead this Forum and abusing the process of law by concocting and distorting the facts & circumstances. The Opposite Parties claim that a Policy bearing No. 11454454 dated 20.12.2007 which commenced from 13.12.2007 was issued in the name of the Complainant on her having filled up a Proposal/ Application Form dated 12.12.2007, along with the premium. The Opposite Parties also claim that the present complaint is barred by limited as the issue pertains to the year 2007 and the present complaint being filed in the year 2011 is beyond limitation and also the present complaint of the Complainant is not accompanied by an application for condonation of this delay. The Opposite Parties have also objected about the non-joinder of necessary parties, as the Complainant herself alleged that Sh. Vibhu Grover had misled her about the policy in question. So, it was necessary to implead him to answer the allegations levelled against him. At the same time, in Para 15 (pg.8) of their preliminary objections, the Opposite Parties have disclosed that the allegation of the Complainant fall flat on account of her own act as she was already a subscriber for other policies and showing her inability in paying the premium installment of the policy in question had actually requested the Opposite Parties to reduce the premium amount. Thus, the claim of the Complainant is totally out of context with regard to the realities related to the policy in question. The fact with regard to the demand of different premiums on different dates as and when they were due towards the Complainant is admitted, the same being matter of record. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 3. The Opposite Party No.3 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the aforesaid policies were issued by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the answering Opposite Party merely acting as a Banker was only responsible for entertaining the Cheque issued by the Complainant towards the payment of premium and that the answering Opposite Party had acted on the instructions of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 has also taken objection that the Complainant had levelled personal allegations against one Sh. Vibhu Grover, who, according to the Complainant, had misled or misguided her. The Complainant had herself not impleaded Sh. Vibhu Grover as a party in the present case. In these circumstances, Opposite Party No.3 is wrongly impleaded. On merits, the Opposite Party No.3 has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Party No.3 is neither verified nor supported by an affidavit. 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. After having gone through the contents of the present complaint, it is revealed that the Complainant had raised objections to the communication dated 28.1.2010 of the Opposite Parties which had herself annexed as Annexure C-2. The title of this letter is clearly mentioned as “Lapsed Policy:Revival Quotation” and thereafter, another letter written by the Opposite Parties dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure C-4) which is purported to be in reply letter dated 18.2.2010 of the Complainant, wherein she had requested the Opposite Parties for reduction in premium in the aforesaid Policy. Though the Complainant has not annexed her letter dated 18.2.2010, at the same time, she had also failed to rebut the contents of Annexure C-4 and had raised almost different issues, through her present complaint. The Opposite Parties NO. 1 and 2 have annexed the letter of the Complainant dated 17.2.2010 (Ex.R-5), wherein, the Complainant had clearly mentioned that she was not aware if she wanted to reduce the premium, the request from her side should have come 21 days prior to the due date of payment. Hence, the claim made by the Opposite Parties is fortified by Ex.R-5, signed by the Complainant herself. 6. Even the allegations of having been misled or misguided by one Sh. Vibhu Grover, Relationship Manager of Opposite Party No.3, too are not found, to have been raised, either with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 or Opposite Party No.3 in any of her communications before filing the present complaint. We have also failed to locate that any legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Parties to register her grievance, as mentioned in the present complaint. 7. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 while replying to the averments of the present complaint have annexed the copy of the proposal form (Ex.R-2) signed by the Complainant and Ex.R-3 the offer letter dated 20.12.2007. The Complainant having herself annexed Annexure C-1 the 1st premium receipt clearly mentions the policy number, plan and premium amount. The Complainant was also guided to consult the policy schedule available with the policy documents for the details of the policy in question, which the Complainant had failed to consult. 8. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have also annexed other Policy documents Ex.R-10, Ex.R-12 bearing No. 10432805 of the year 2005 and No. 13462874 of the year 2010, respectively, to claim that the Complainant being subscriber for two other policies has not raised any objections qua them on the same lines as in her present complaint, as the policy (Ex.R-10) is prior to the one in question and there was no ground for the Complainant to raise the allegations of being misled or misguided, as she was already aware about the manner in which a policy is subscribed and the terms and conditions that govern it. Thus, the claim of the Complainant that she was misled and misguided by the Relationship Manager of Opposite Party No.3, for subscribing for the policy in question, falls flat. 9. In the light of above observations, as the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, without costs. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
