Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/103

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa ,Adv.

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 103 of 14.12.2015

                               Date of decision                 : 11.07.2016

 

Gurmeet Singh, Son of Sh. Ajit Singh, resident of Village Kanjla, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

 

                                                       ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. situated at SL Morinda Branch, Shop No.8, Ward No.10, Sarafa Bazar, Morinda, District Rupnagar through its Manager.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Morinda through its Manager Amandeep Singh.

3. Kulbir Singh, son of Sh. Darbara Singh, resident of VPO Kainour, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar agent HDFC Life Insurance.

4. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh SCO No.149-150-151, Ist Floor, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

 

 

                                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Manbir Singh Dhindsa Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 ex-parte

Sh. Harjeet Singh Saini Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2

Sh. K.S. Longia, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.4

 

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Gurmeet Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)  praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To release the scheme amount of Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest @ 16% per annum till its realization

 

ii)      To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost,

 

iii)     To award any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.  

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the O.P. No.3, in the month of May 2010, contacted him and told that he was working as Agent of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and asked him to deposit Rs.25,000/- in the scheme launched by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and assured him that he would get triple the amount after five years. Allured by him, complainant deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, at the time of receiving the said amount the O.P. No.3 got his  signature on blank proposal form and policy bearing No.13685190 dated 22.5.2010 was issued to him .  After one years, he visited the bank i.e. O.P. No.2, its official told him to deposit of Rs.25,000/- annually in the said scheme and he came into the talks of the said official and had deposited Rs.25,000/-. When after about 5 years, he visited in the office of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, Morinda and demanded the amount as per assurance given by O.Ps., then instead of making of the payment, the official of O.P. No.1 had issued customer acknowledgement. He had deposited the five installments of Rs.25,000/- each and till today, in total he had deposited Rs.1,25,000/- with the O.Ps. No.1 to 3. He is legally entitled to get the amount as assured by the O.Ps. along with interest @ 18% per annum. He approached and requested the O.Ps to make the payment, but the O.Ps were putting off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       Inspite of issuance of notice, none having appeared on behalf of the O.Ps .1 & 3, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2016.

 4.               On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.2 filed written version taking preliminary objections that; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad in the eyes of law for mis joinder; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that relief claimed by the complainant is in respect of the insurance policy purchased from O.Ps. No.1 & 4. In respect of any grievance related to insurance company the complainant is required to approach the O.Ps. No.1 & 4 for redressal of the same. It is the O.Ps. No.1 & 4, who have to accept or reject the claim as per terms of the insurance policy.  On merits, it is stated that no employee of the bank ever insisted the complainant to deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- as alleged. The complainant himself and at his own free will after understanding the features of the policy had deposited the amount as premium of insurance policy purchased from O.Ps. No.1 & 4. Answering O.P., never assured the complainant for refund of the money deposited by him. The amount was lying deposited with the Insurance company and it was the insurance company, who had to return the money to the complainant, hence the question of giving assurance to him by the answering O.P. does not arises. Since, the issue is related to refund of amount which the complainant had deposited with O.Ps. No.1 & 4, hence, there is no question of any deficiency in service on its part.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, the same being without any merit.

 

5.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 has filed written version taking preliminary that the present complaint is not maintainable because O.P. has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy rather the complainant has made default in making of the payment of installments; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. The life assured has neither approached the O.P. nor raised any grievance till date; that the complainant is barred by limitation as the complainant purchased the policy in the year 2010. Neither life assured ever approached nor surrendered the policy within the free look period; that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands; the complainant has concealed the material facts; that all the pleas made in the complaint are false and frivolous; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the  complainant had approached the official of the O.P. for the purpose of investing money in the HDFC Saving Assurance Policy. Complainant opted policy by paying annual premium of Rs.25,000/- for the term for ten years. Complainant has duly signed the proposal form for the purchase of policy. Proposal form  was  accepted  on  standard rate on  the  basis  of                  information provided by the complainant. Complainant is an educated person. The policy bearing No.13685190 was issued on 22.5.2010. In the policy, there was an option to return the policy, in case not agreeable to the complainant, within 15 days from the receipt of policy. Complainant has neither returned the policy nor paid the subsequent installments. The policy was commenced w.e.f. 22.5.2010., the annual premium was Rs.25,000/- per annum, but the complainant has not deposited the premium subsequently. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, the same being without any merit.

6.        On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. C1, along with photocopies of documents, Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting O.P. No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Mehta, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Morinda, Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 tendered affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Associate Manager Ex.OP4/A along with cop of receipt Ex.OP4/B and closed the evidence 

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the O.Ps. No.2 & 4 and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.                From the letter dated 22.05.2010, Ex.C10, it is evident that HDFC saving assurance policy bearing No.13685190 was issued in favour of the complainant for sum assured of Rs2,09,422/- and the complainant had to pay Rs.25,000/- as premium annually for ten years having maturity date 20.05.2020. From the document i.e. your policy at glance Ex.OP4/B, it is clear that the policy in question is a conventional policy and not connected to the unit linked market returns. From the first premium receipt Ex.OP4/B, and the renewal premium receipts Ex.C11 to Ex.C14, it is evident that complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- as premium continuously for five years and in total had paid Rs.1,25,000/-.          It may be stated that, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. As per term No.3 (ii) of the policy, “ if premium remains unpaid 15 days after the due date, then the policy may lapse with effect from due date of the first premium unpaid. As per terms No.4 of the policy, “if premium is paid continuously for three years, then the policy holder is entitled to get the surrender value.

 

Admittedly in this case, the complainant had paid only five installments and thereafter had not paid the premium for the next due installment. Therefore, as per term No.4 of the insurance policy Ex.C10, the complainant is entitled to get surrender value. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had requested the O.Ps. for  refund of the due amount in the year 2015, but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed to his request. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 vehemently argued that the complainant never surrender the policy and HDFC Insurance Company is still ready to pay the surrender value as per  terms and conditions of the policy provided complainant surrenders the policy.  The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that he had made a written request to the Insurance Company for refund of the due amount, but at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that had the HDFC Insurance Company had the intention to pay the surrender value to the complainant, then it should had made the offer to pay the surrender value to the complainant after receipt of the notice only. But no such efforts were made by the Insurance company, therefore, complainant is not only entitled to get the surrender value as per terms and conditions of the policy along with interest but also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses.

          Admittedly, complainant purchased the policy in question in the year 2010, if the complainant had any grievance against the bank then he should have filed the complaint within statutory period of two years as per section 24 of the Act, therefore, the complaint filed qua it is liable to be dismissed. 

So far as the deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.3 is concerned. The complainant has alleged that the O.P. No.3, who is the agent of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, has got his signatures on the blank proposal form. It may be stated that the complainant was duty bound to put his signatures on the duly filled proposal form instead of putting his signatures on the blank proposal form. Even otherwise, no cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove the said fact. Even otherwise, Therefore, the complaint filed against O.P.No.3 is also liable to be dismissed.

9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 and partly allow the same against O.Ps. No.1 & 4. The said O.Ps. are directed in the following manner:-

i. To pay the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 14.12.2015 till its realization.

ii. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

iii. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  

The O.Ps. No. 1 & 4 are further directed to comply with the above said directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 10.             The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                      (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated          11.07.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.