DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.679/2012

Shri Nikolai Valchev

S/o Mr. Vatio Valchev

R/o E-23, Lajpat Nagar Part-III

New Delhi-110024.                                            …Complainant

                                                VERUS

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Manager

Having its Branch Office at –

C-4, IRCON Building, District Centre

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

Also at:-

Unit No.4, Plot No. 7 & 8

Vardhman Trade Tower

2^nd Floor, Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019.                                            ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution  :24.12.2012                           

Date of Order         :04.08.2022

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

          The complainant has requested to pass an award directing the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP) to refund an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @18% p.a.; (ii) to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards causing mental torture/agony etc.; (iii) to pay litigation charges amounting Rs.30,000/- etc. etc.

          Brief facts of the case are as under:-

          The complainant is a Bulgarian National, got NRI status and residing at the address given in the complaint. On 03.12.2009, the complainant believing upon the assurance and representations made by the representatives of OP, invested a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the form of FDR on the premium amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The first premium was paid on 05.12.2009 and second premium alongwith late fee, an amount of Rs.3,23,718/- was paid on 15.11.2011.  It was also averred that the relevant document with respect to above investment could not be received in time as he remained mostly out of India. The same could be received after two months.

          The complainant was facing financial constraints in the year 2012, so, he wanted to withdraw the FDR amount.  When he approached the OP, he was told by one of the representatives that if he withdraw the money at this stage, he won’t get anything despite the fact the complainant had already invested Rs.6,00,000/-.  It was revealed from the documents made available to him that the same were not related to the FDR rather were of Saving Insurance Policy.  This fact of insurance policy was never disclosed to him.  The status of complainant was recorded as Indian National deliberately with dishonest and malafide intention. The OP took the amount for their own gain made the insurance policy No.13300160. Upon this, the complainant made a written complaint and the OP vide its letter dated 09.08.2012 assured to resolve the grievances of the complainant.  He approached the representative of OP to cancel the policy and refund the amount but of no avail.

The OP vide its letter dated 17.08.2012 instead of cancelling the policy and refund the amount rather demanded a sum of Rs.3,30,431/- towards premium & revival charges etc.  He kept on writing to this effect and many a time, the representatives of the OP threatened and misbehaved with him.

          The aforesaid act of the OP is illegal and unlawful as the OP under the false representation and promises, the hard earned money was invested in insurance policy instead of FDRs. In the absence of satisfactory reply, he got the legal notice issued.

OP, on the other hand, filed reply inter alia raised preliminary objections.  It has been contended by the OP that there was no mis-sale of the policy and subject policy was issued to the complainant based upon the proposal form duly signed by the complainant. The features and benefits of the said policy were also explained to him.  Upon satisfying with features, the complainant signed the proposal form for insurance policy. The subject policy was issued in Dec. 2009.  This mis-sale was alleged for the first time on 07.08.2012.  The complainant paid 2^nd instalment of premium with late fee in 2011 which cannot be in the case of FDRs.  The OP also stated that the present complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.

          It is pointed out by the OP that the subject policy was for HDFC Saving Assurance Plan having a sum of assured of Rs.25,26,968/-at the annual premium of Rs.3,33,000/- with risk commencement date i.e. 05.12.2009. Alongwith the proposal form, the complainant also signed the form of illustration details of benefits upon maturity, death as well as upon surrender.  The policy documents even provided look-in period of fifteen days within which policy holder can seek cancellation of the Policy, if he is not satisfied with Policy’s terms & conditions but the same was not done.  It is averred by the OP that the complainant first time raised this aspect that he is NRI otherwise it is the complainant who represented himself to be an Indian at the time of proposal Form.  Besides the policy in question, the complainant also holds five other policies issued by the OP in which he represented to be an Indian National.  It was contended that the OP is not a bank who can take money from the public as deposits/FDRs.

          Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit.  Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.

This Commission has gone into entire material placed before us and due consideration to the arguments was also given.  After going through the averments, it comes out clearly that the bone of contention of the parties is about the amount deposited by the complainant whether the same was meant for FDRs or it was a premium for the purchase of Insurance Policy. The complainant had contended all through its submissions that he was made to believe that the amount so deposited was meant for FDRs. But he could not substantiate this claim by way of any shred of evidence.  Whereas, the OP had rebutted the contention of the complainant on the following grounds:-

1. The complainant being literate person not only signed the proposal form but also signed the Form of illustration containing illustration details of the benefits upon maturity, death as well as upon surrender.  Having signed all these documents, it cannot be termed as mis-sale of policy as contended by complainant.
2. The complainant deposited the 2^nd instalments of premium in 2011 with late fees. There is hardly any instance where the amount/premium is deposited in instalment in FDRs.
3. It is also reiterated by OP that the complainant is not a novice to the concept of insurance so as to assume that he had taken FD.  The complainant had already purchased   three other insurance policies prior to the policy in question in 2009 and even subsequently taken two more policies in 2010 from the OP which amply prove this fact that complainant is not unknown to taking Insurance Policies.

It is exhorted by the OP that all these facts wholly falsify the theory of FDRs being set up by the complainant.  Complainant could not provide any shred of evidence to substantiate his claim.

The issue of complainant being consumer as objected by OP was examined by this Commission.  Perusal of the record shows that the complainant purchased a policy and entered into an agreement to avail the services of the OP for consideration. Hence the complaint also qualify to be filed in the consumer Commission.

On the other hand, the complainant could not produce any documents to support his claim. This Commission also appreciate the stand of OP as reflected in its letter dated 17.08.2012 whereby it is offered to the complainant that as a special consideration, the OP can revive the policy in question subject to underwriting decision, with the request to pay the 3^rd instalment to the tune of Rs.3,30,431/- and further submission of OP vide its reply asserting that then the complainant shall be entitled to exercise the option of surrendering the policy after expiry of 3 years where upon the complainant is entitled to the benefits as per terms and conditions of policy but has not opted the same.

In nutshell, after having considered the facts and circumstances in the case and narrations as pointed out, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. As contended by the OP vide its letter dated 17.08.2012 the complainant does not qualify the condition of surrendering the policy so as to claim the surrendered value of the policy. Hence, the request of the complainant fails and its request is rejected.

No order as to the costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.