Punjab

StateCommission

A/1131/2014

Vikasdeep Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Malik

23 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                                 PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1131 of 2014

 

                                                Date of Institution: 08.08.2014

                                                Date of Decision:  23.02.2016

 

Vikasdeep Saini S/o Dharam Pal Saini (SDO retired), r/o # Kailashpur, New Bridge No.P.O Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Pathankot (P.B).

                                                               …Appellant/Complainant

                             Versus

 

1.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co, through its Incharge,         Registered Office (HDFC) Standard Life Insurance Ramon        House, H.T Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai           400020, India.

2.      Officer-in-Charge, (HDFC) Standard Life Insurance Co. Corporate Office, 2nd Floor, 'A' Wing, Trade Star Bldg, Anher-         Kurla Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064, India.

3.      Officer-In-Charge, (HDFC) Standard Life Insurance Co.,          Issuing Office : 5th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex   Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai 400064, India.

4.      Branch Manager, (HDFC) Standard Life, Dalhousie Road, Shiv        Parbati Market, Opposite Shani Mandir, Pathankot (PB).

 

                                                           ..Respondents /Opposite Parties

                  

First Appeal against order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Gurdaspur

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri. H.S. Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             : Sh.Mohit Malik, Advocate

          For the respondent               : Sh. Natin Thatai, Advocate

         

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

          J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 30.06.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant now appellant.

2.      The complainant          Vikashdeep Saini has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he obtained insurance policy no. 11766484 on 20.03.2008 from HDFC Standard Life Insurance branch Dalhousie Road, Pathankot for the period of five years w.e.f. 29.03.2008 to onwards @ Rs.1 lac annual premium installment under plan United Endowment Plus II. The complainant deposited first installment of Rs.1 lac on 29.03.2008 with OPs through Chandra Sekhar. The complainant had not deposited further installment due to lack off good dealing with OPs. The complainant visited the office of the OPs during the tenure of policy period and even after the lapse of stipulated period of plan United Linked Endowment Plus II of policy and then asked OP No.4 to release the amount of Rs.1 lac with interest @ 18% thereupon. The OPs flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant for release of above-said amount. He obtained the policy on 29.03.2008 at Pathankot for a period of five years. The complainant served a legal notice dated 04.6.2013 to OPs, but to no effect.  The complainant has, thus, prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1 lac along with interest thereupon to him against policy no.11766484 on 29.03.2008. The complainant further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint alleging to be false and frivolous one. The jurisdiction of District Forum is excluded has been alleged in this case by the OPs. It was admitted that complainant purchased the policy from OPs in the year 2008. If, the policyholder was not satisfied with the plan, then he had right to cancel the policy within free look period of 15 days provided to the customer or policyholder. The policy stood lapsed due to non-payment of premium. OPs contested the complaint of the complainant even on merits and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna Associate Legal Manager Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Gurdaspur, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 30.06.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Gurdaspur dated 30.06.2014, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      It is an undisputed fact in this case that complainant purchased policy no.11766484 on 29.03.2008 from OPs/HDFC Branch Pathankot for a period of five years w.e.f. 29.03.2008 onwards @ 1 lac annual installment. The policy was United Plan Endowment Plus II. He obtained first installment of Rs.1 lac on 29.03.2008. The complainant now appellant asked the OP to refund the premium amount with interest, but to no effect. On the other hand, submission of OPs now respondents in this appeal is that free look period has been provided in the policy to opt of the policy. The complainant has not exercised the option to cancel it. It was also submitted during the arguments that the complainant is not proved to be a 'consumer'. We proceed to examine the evidence on the record. Ex.C-1/A is affidavit of the complainant in support of his averments. This is verbatim reproduction of the version of the complaint. Ex.C-1 is first premium receipt dated 29.03.2008 for payment of Rs.1 lac on 29.03.2008 by complainant. Ex.C-2 is legal notice served by complainant to OPs. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 are postal receipts.

7.      To refute this evidence, OPs relied upon affidavit of Amit Khan Associate Legal Manager Ex.OP-1 on behalf of OPs and reply to legal notice is Ex.OP-2. Proposal Form is Ex.OP-3. Ex.OP-4 is copy of statement of account. Ex.OP-5  is quotation for HDFC Unit Linked Endowment Plus II. It is an undisputed fact in this case that complainant received policy from OPs, this is United Linked Endowment Plus II. The complainant also filled in the proposal form Ex.OP-3 in this regard. It is United Linked Proposal Form, signed by the complainant and complainant can be presumed to have understood its contents when he filled the proposal form and duly signed it on 21.03.2008. Free Look Period option was available to complainant, but he has not opted to come out of the policy within 15 days period. Policy was also United Linked Policy, which is speculative in nature with the sole aim of earning profit and not for earning livelihood. The National Commission has held in   Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company and ors, III (2013) CPJ-203 (NC), that the policy having been taken for investment of premium amount, policy taken for investment of the premium in the share market, which is a speculative transaction and the complainant does not come within the purview of consumer, as per the Act. We, thus, conclude that the complainant is not a 'consumer' of the OPs and as such, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance and cannot wriggle out of the same.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case. The appeal is found without any merits and same is hereby dismissed.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S.GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

February 23, 2016                                                              

(ravi)