DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/88 of 4.5.2015

                                      Decided on:        30.10.2015

Rajesh Kumar Resident of H.No.1, Charan Bagh, Patiala Mobile No.98558-60710.   

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      The HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd., SCO 114-115, New Leela Bhawan Market, Above Domino Pizza, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.

2.      HDFC, Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 through its Authorized Signatory.

3.      Grievance Redressal Cell, Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020 through its Authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Amar Singh , Advocate

For Ops:                         Sh.Amit Kumar,Advocate           

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased a Unit Linked Pension Maximiser-II policy bearing No.13097830 from the Ops on 25^th August,2009 showing the frequency of the premium as “single premium” and the term of the policy as 15 years to be effective from 22^nd August,2009. Smt.Suman, the wife of the complainant was shown to be the nominee.
2. It is further averred that the Ops had supplied the standard policy provision including Clause-1 regarding the surrender of the policy. Sub para B of Clause 1 provided that policy may be surrendered at any time after the first three years. On request for the surrender the life assured will not be covered for the death benefits as provided under clause 3(i).The amount payable on surrender will be the unit fund value on surrender less the surrender charges as specified in the schedule of charges. Upon payment of the said benefit, the policy terminates and no further benefits are payable. A surrendered policy will not be reinstated under any circumstances.
3. The Ops issued the statement of account on 23.8.2010 showing the fund value at Rs.61,018.21.The complainant being under a financial crises was in the need of the funds and therefore, in order to meet with his social obligations , he approached Op no.1 alongwith original policy documents so as to surrender the policy and he requested Op no.1 to close the policy and to disburse the surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant made a number of representations to the Ops for the disbursement of the surrender value but to no effect. However, he was told by Op no.1 that the policy had already been closed and the amount disbursed to Mr.Rajesh Kumar of Gurgaon (Haryana).On coming to know about the same , the complainant suffered the mental agony because the person in whose favor the Ops claimed having disbursed the amount is not connected with the complainant and he was not entitled to receive the payment. Otherwise also the original documents are in the possession of the complainant and thus, he had come to know that a fraud was played with him. He never authorized anyone to receive the amount of the policy. The fraud is not possible except with the connivance of some authority concerned in the disbursement of the amount and not verifying the original documents.
4. The complainant requested the Ops to investigate the matter as the fraud had been committed by someone in connivance with the officials of the Ops but nothing was  done by the Ops which resulted into the harassment suffered by the complainant. The complainant approached the Ops again on 8.2.2015 and disclosed the entire facts but  Op no.1 failed to accept the documents on the ground that the policy held by the complainant had since been closed in the year 2012 and payment released in favor of Mr.Rajesh Kumar of Gurgaon. The payment released by the Ops without having verified the original documents and without any request of surrender made by the complainant, does not bind the complainant as he cannot be denied his lawful right. The act of the Ops is also said to be an unfair trade practice and indulging into a mal practice. Accordingly the complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 27.2.2014 but the same was received undelivered. Again the complainant got Ops no.2&3 served with a legal notice dated 13.3.2015 through his counsel, which was delivered to Ops no.2&3 but to no effect. Consequently the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to release the payment of Rs.50,000/- alongwith other benefits/surrender value of the policy with interest; to pay him Rs.2lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony qua the unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops and to award him Rs.11,000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
5. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against the Ops who caused their appearance through their counsel and field the written version on behalf of Ops no.1&2 only. The Ops have admitted the issuance of the policy in favor of the complainant. As admitted by the complainant, it was a unit linked policy and the surrender value payable was according to the stock market rates applicable at the relevant time. The amount was invested in the stock market and the amount payable depended upon the fluctuation in the stock market from time to time and therefore anything beyond the unit price prevalent at the relevant time could not be paid to the complainant.-. On the request of the complainant, the policy was surrendered alongwith the documents submitted by the complainant and the surrender value thereof has already been remitted  to the complainant. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant has alleged a fraud in respect of the release of the surrender value of the policy and therefore, the Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the matter is liable to be referred to the Civil court where both the parties will get ample opportunities to present their case on the basis of the evidence. The policy has already been closed and the amount remitted to the policy holder and therefore, the question of making any further payment does not arise at all. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the complaint is barred by limitation. The Ops have not committed any deficiency in service. The allegations made in the complaint are false and frivolous. The Forum cannot pass any order beyond the terms and conditions of the policy agreement. After denouncing the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C10 and his counsel closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Associate Manager, Legal of the Ops at Chandigarh alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP2 and closed their evidence.
8. The Ops filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
9. It is the case of the complainant that since he was under a financial crisis, he was in the need of the funds to discharge his social obligations, he had approached Op no.1 alongwith original documents so as to surrender the policy and to disburse the amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy but he was told by Op no.1 that his policy had already been closed and the amount remitted in favor of one Rajesh Kumar of Gurgaon(Haryana).Tothe contrary, it is the plea taken up by the Ops that on a request made by the complainant, the policy was surrendered on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant and the surrender value thereof has already been remitted to the complainant.
10. Nothing is disclosed by the Ops as to how and in what manner the payment of the surrender value of the policy was made by them in favor of the complainant. They have also not denied the plea of the complainant that the payment was made in favor of Mr.Rajesh Kumar of Gurgaon(Haryana).
11. Ex.C9 is the letter dated 3^rd April,2015 , written by Op no.1 to Sh.Kulwinder Singh Rajput, Advocate in response to the notice dated 13^th March,2015 sent by him ( Copy Ex.C8) on the subject:Reply to the Legal notice dated 13^th March,2015. Ref: Sh.Rajesh Chander, Policy No.13097830 and interalia informed, “We wish to inform you that we have taken note of the allegations made by your client and after due looking into the matter and after considering all the aspects. We would like to inform you that your client have given a request letter to surrender the policy and to get the surrender value in the above said policy in HDFC life, Patiala Branch on 28^th October,2014. After thorough investigation and allegation raised by your client, Considering your Client’s request being a customer centric company HDFC Life has accepted your request on 30^th March,2015 and the same was communicated to your client and requested him to submit the required documents at the nearest branch of HDFC Life i.e NEFT Mandate for processing the refund of the surrender amount. Copy of the letter for the acceptance of your client’s request dated 30^th March,2015 is Annexed herewith the reply for your quick reference”.
12. It is no where the plea taken up by the Ops that in response to the said letter Ex.C9, the complainant had submitted any documents at the nearest branch of HDFC life i.e. NEFT mandate for processing the refund of the surrender amount and that the surrender amount was accordingly credited into the account of the complainant meaning thereby that the Ops have failed to show that they ever made the payment of any surrender value of the policy, as per the plea taken up by them in para No.9 of the written version. It was not difficult for the Ops to have lead the evidence by producing the record regarding payment of the surrender value made in favor of the complainant.

We fail to understand as to how the Ops have pressed for the plea of the fraud to have been practised by the complainant upon them. Similarly there is no question of the complaint being barred by limitation because the cause of action had to accrue in favor of the complainant only when the Ops show that they made the payment of the surrender value in favor of the complainant, which they have utterly failed to prove. Consequently the citation Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd. 2013(3) C.P.J.(N.C.) 203: 2013(2)CPR (NC) 389 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Ops cannot be applied to the facts of the case.

13. It is interesting to note that the Ops have made the payment of surrender value in favor of the complainant without disclosing the exact amount thereof without getting the original policy documents from him.Today Sh.Amar Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant suffered the statement that he has brought the original receipt dated 19.8.2009 for Rs.50,000/- as also the original policy documents received by the complainant from the Ops to show that the complainant never surrendered the policy with Ops. We have ourselves seen the aforesaid original documents and this aspect also lends support the plea of the complainant that the Ops had not collected the original documents and he was disclosed by Op no.1 that the payment had already been made by them in favor of one Rajesh Kumar of Gurgaon(Haryana), a fact not denied by the Ops in the written version. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ops failed to get the policy surrendered by the complainant as desired by him and to make the payment of the surrender value thereof as per the terms and conditions of the policy. This amounted to an act of deficiency on the part of the Ops. We therefore, accept the complaint with a direction to the Ops to accept the policy documents of the complainant in original and to pay the surrender value thereof as on the date of surrendering the policy, which we work out as 25.8.2014 as it is disclosed by the complainant in the application addressed to Op no.1 dated 28.10.2014 Ex.C4 that he had approached the Ops after a period of five years to get the amount of the policy and when it was transpired that an unknown person of Gurgaon(Haryana) had submitted the forged documents and got the amount of the policy, with interest  @10% per annum till final payment. The complainant shall also be entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the act of deficiency on the part of the Ops. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:30.10.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President