by save net"> investment
plan launched by HDFC Bank and tried to convince upon the said plans but after hearing all the plans the complainant proposed to the agent that she was intent to purchase a fixed deposit certificate of Rs. 4,00,000/- for three years.
The complainant stated that he came to learnt that after having the documents from the agent by hand on sealed envelope and find that there is an insurance policy in the name of HDFC Savings Assurance Policy dated 21.03.13 wherefrom it appears that the policy bearing No. 15945748, date of commencement 18.03.13 and final premium due on 18.03.22 and ID No. 60518298.
The complainant further stated that the complainant being astonished and went to the office of the O.P. No.2 for proper investigation of the said policy and came to learn that the said agent cunningly made this policy for the term of 10 years and the complainant had to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- per year as premium.
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 2/-
C. C. Case No.-578/2013
- :: 2 :: -
The complainant also stated that the complainant wrote several letters to the O.Ps for proper redress as the complainant is not able to pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/- only per year as per terms of alleged insurance policy as because the complainant is a housewife who solely surviving upon her husband who being a retired person based upon the merger pension.
The complainant further stated that as the next premium due on 18.03.14 for which the complainant being worried and went to the office of the O.P. No.2 and rotated pillar to post by the complainant in the office of the O.P. No.2 and finding no redress the complainant lodged a complaint by e-mail on 11.05.13 and the O.P made reply on 22.05.13 by e. mail.
The complainant also stated that by virtue of all complaints it has appeared that the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not properly done by the agent of alleged HDFC Insurance plan which being totally unknown to the complainant and it was also transpire that the agent of the O.P. No.2 purposefully and motivatedly submitted the wrong address phone number preventing O.P s’ personal from contacting directly. Hence the complaint.
The O.P has contested the case by way of filing written version.
The O.P stated that the instant complaint is barred by law and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P further stated that in or about March, 13, the complainant approached the O.P through its agent and expressed her willingness to avail a life insurance policy. The agent of the O.P duly furnished details about several policies. After understanding and being satisfied with the same, the complainant duly applied for a “HDFC Savings Assurance Plan” by filling up the application form.
The O.P also stated that upon receipt of her written applications, the O.P issued a “HDFC” saving Assurance Plan” bearing policy No. 15945748 in favour of the complainant. In order to avail such policy the complainant also signed the illustration and policy document which clearly stated the working benefits. Term and type of policy. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs. 4, 00, 000/-. The original document of the said policy along with the covering letter dated 21.03.13 was duly dispatched to the complainant.
The complainant further stated that the said policy document was duly received by the husband of the complainant on 09.04.13. Each policy document as per the IRDA guidelines contains an option to return of the policy, if the policy holder is not satisfied within its Free Look Period i.e. 15 days. The complainant was also provided with the similar option with original documents but the complainant
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 3/-
C. C. Case No.-578/2013
- :: 3 :: -
did not opt for the option of return of the policy within its free look period from where it can be presumed that she was satisfied with the terms and conditions.
The complainant also stated after passing of more than one month from the receipt of the policy, the complainant alleged mis-sale of policy by letter dated 11.05.13 and asked to cancel the policy and refund of premium. The O.P by letter dated 22.05.13 informed the complainant that her request for cancellation and refund of premium could not be processed as the cancellation request was not made within free look period. Hence the O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
It appears that admittedly on approach of the complainant, OPs issued a “HDFC Saving Assurance Plan” in favour of the complainant. The said policy was for a term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs 4, 00, 000/-. According to the OPs the original document of the said policy along with the covering letter dated 21st March, 2013 was duly dispatched from the complainant. The said document, according to the OP was duly received by the husband of the complainant on 8th April, 2013. But complainant did not inform her dissatisfaction regarding the terms and conditions of the policy within Free Look Period i.e. 15 days. According to the complainant, she was desirous of purchasing a fix deposit certificate of Rs 4, 00, 000/- for 3 years. She contacted by the agents of the OPs and they assured that would take necessary steps to purchase the fix deposit certificate of Rs 4,00, 000/- and made to sign an application. Ld Lawyer for the OP submitted that OPs Company is Insurance Company which sale various insurance policies and does not provide any fix deposit scheme. Admittedly complainant signed the proposal form which says that it is a proposal form for HDFC Savings Assurance Plan and not any proposal fix deposit. It appears that complainant signed in English. So, it cannot be said that the complainant does not known the English language. Admittedly complainant after receiving the policy retained the same but did not inform her dissatisfaction within Free Look Period. After passing of more than one month, complainant sought for cancellation of the policy which OPs refused. Ld Lawyer for the OP argued that the Insurance policy is a conclusive contract and parties are bound by the terms and conditions thereof. The complainant cannot seek deviation from the terms for her own benefit. According to Ld. Lawyer for the OP argued that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on negligence on the part of the OPs. Ld Lawyer for the OP relied on decision reported in (2013) II CPJ 1 (SC) and 2013 II CPJ 122 (NC) where in it has been held that “Insurance Policy-Principles regarding-Policy of Insurance is a
Dictated and corrected Contd. …. 4/-
C. C. Case No.-578/2013
- :: 4 :: -
contract between insured and insurer-terms and conditions of policy are binding upon parties-terms and conditions are required to be read with reference to stipulations contained in policy-non observance of terms of policy can vitiate the policy and absolve Insurance Company of its liable to undemnify the loss.”
We have gone through the facts of the aforesaid cases and we are of the view that facts of aforesaid cases are not applicable with the present case. After carefully going through the affidavit in chief filed by the complainant and the documents filed by the complainant we are of the view that complainant being and educated person, she cannot take plea that she was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and the facts of the scheme under which the money was invested was for a period of 10 years with annual premium of Rs 4, 00, 000/-. It is clearly mentioned in the proposal form that the premium is annual and the said premium cause of Rs 4, 00, 000/-. So, after considering the entire materials on record, we are of the view that there is no merit in this case. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Hence
Ordered,
that the complaint and same be dismissed on contest.
Parities to bear their own cost.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member President
Dictated & Corrected by me.
