Date of filing : 25-04-2013
Date of order : 19-05-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.128/2013
Dated this, the 19th day of May 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Janardhanan, S/o.P.Ambadi, : Complainant
R/at Poroli House, Ambalathara,
Achikanam.Po. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.S.Muralikrishna. Hosdurg)
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, : Opposite parties
IInd floor, Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mills Compound,
N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai.400011.
2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Life Insurance,
Kasaragod Branch.Po. Kasaragod.
(Adv.Saji Isaac, Ernakulam)
3. P.K.Anilkumar Nambiar,
S/o.Ramakrishnan Nambiar, Velloor.Po.
Payyanur.Via.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA,MEMBER
The case of the complainant in brief is that he had invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with opposite parties insurance company believing the assurance of opposite party No.3 who is the agent of opposite parties 1&2, opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that on maturity that is after 5 years from the date of investment, amount with benefits accrued will be paid back to him. It is further told that the amount cannot be withdrawn for the first 3 years, the amount will be doubled by 3 years and will become 14 lakhs by maturity. The maturity date was not informed to the complainant in advance. Anticipating the amount on maturity the complainant created several liabilities. Being in need of money complainant personally gone to the office of opposite party No.2 in the 3rd week of January 2013 and requested to pay back the money. But surprisingly only at that time it was informed to the complainant that the amount is transferred to pension scheme, on maturity. These facts were not informed to the complainant while joining him to the policy or thereafter. Thereafter the complainant sent written requests on 28-01-2013 & 21-02-2013 for which opposite party sent a reply stating that the policy cannot be surrendered. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Adv.Saji Isaac.K.J filed version for opposite parties 1 & 2. According to opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred by law of limitation. Another contention raised by opposite parties are that complainant had accepted the policy after agreeing to the terms and conditions. After having accepted the policy the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. Unit linked policies are different from the traditional policies and are subject to different risk factors. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A4 marked. Complainant faced cross-examination by opposite parties counsel. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence and Exts B1 to B6 marked. Heard both ides.
4. Opposite parties raised a contention that the complaint is “barred by the law of limitation”. Complainant joined in the insurance scheme on 16-01-2008 the term was 5 years. In Ext.B2 dated 26th November 2012, it is stated that the policy will mature on 16th January 2013. The amount is vested for 5 years. So it is not barred by limitation. Moreover, the complainant sent written requests dated 28-01-2013 & 21-02-2013 to return the invested amount with interests for which opposite party No.1 sent a reply dated 08-03-2013 stating that the policy cannot be surrendered so the complaint is not barred by limitation.
5. Another contention raised by opposite parties are that the complainant had accepted the policy after agreeing the terms and conditions complainant specifically stated in his complaint and affidavit that he is persuaded by the agent of the company. Opposite parties are well versed with the advantages and disadvantages of each policy. But the agents used to mislead the customers by giving attractive offers. The agents used to conceal the actual terms and conditions at the time of obtaining signature in proposal form and money. After few months of payment of premium the complainant got policy document which is printed in tiny letters, unable to read the terms and conditions printed in tiny letters as the conditions are not transparent. Innocent consumers unknowingly falling in to the trap of agent believing the attractive offers of agents. Here the agent assured the complainant that the amount will be doubled after 3 years on maturity the amount with benefits will be 14 lakhs. Complainant used to get letters from the company yearly describing the “Annuity options” descriptions as he does not know English. Ext.B3, B4, B5 are intimation letters containing dangerous conditions. Those conditions is:
a) The vesting proceeds will lie with the company without accruing any interest from the date of vesting till the time they receive all the required and duly filled documents.
7. That condition is clear evidence for the unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and concealment of material facts. Complainant had every right to know the advantages and disadvantages of policy choosen by him. Opposite parties jointly concealed the conditions which adversely affects the complainant. Opposite parties failed to obtain the free consent of the complainant before transferring the matured amount to pension scheme. No evidence is produced before the Forum, to show that opposite parties has obtained free consent from complainant before transferring the matured amount to pension scheme. The act of opposite parties caused damages and mental pain and sufferings to the complainant. The loss suffered by the complainant has to be compensated. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit and deposition of the complainant before the Forum. No contra evidence is produced by opposite parties to disprove the case of the complainant.
Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.3 lakhs (being the deposited amount) with 10% interest from the date of deposit till payment and Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant.. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Opposite party No.3 is exonerated from the liability.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Policy issued by HDFC.
A2.28-1-2013 letter sent by complainant to OP NO.2.
A3.21-02-2013 letter sent by complainant to OP No.2.
A4.reply Sent by Ops 1 & 2 to complainant.
B1.Letter sent by OP to complainant.
B2. Copy of Annuity Options for you Pension Plan-Policy Number 11529833.
B3. Copy of Non-receipt of Annuity Options Form-Annuity Policy No.11529833
B4. Copy of Non-receipt of Annuity Options form-Annuity Policy No.11529833
B5. Copy of Non-receipt of Annuity Options form-Annuity Policy No.11529833
B6. Copy of Annuity Kit-Policy No.1159833
PW1.P.Janardhanan
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Pj/
