Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/46/2018

Mrs.R.Ankayarkkani W/o.V.Ravindranthan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC standard Life Insurance co.Ltd Rep by its General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.N.jayabalan, B. Manivannan

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on:27.03.2018                                                               

                                                                    Date of disposal            :20.10.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                   TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                             : MEMBER-1

                                THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA     : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.46/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

•  
• R.Ankayarkkanni 
• W/o.V.Ravindranathan               

No.19/52, Sri Raman Salai, 

First Cross Street, Thanikachalam Nagar East,

Chennai-600 110….Complainant

 

•  

 

1.  

H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,,

 Represented by its General Manager

     11^th Floor,

N.M. Doshi Road, Mahalaxmi,

Mumbai-400 011.

 

2. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Old No.9, New.No.57 First Floor, Block No.A,

2.  

Chennai-600 102.

1.  

 

Counsel for the complainant                      :M/s.N.Jayabalan &B.Manivannan

 

Counsel for the opposite parties              :M/s.V.Vijayakumar

                                                                                S.Sivakumar

ORDER

THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                           : PRESIDENT  

This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this commission to pay a sum of Rs.268165/- being matured value of the HDFC life Sampooran Samridhi Plan bearing policy No.15487404 in favour of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.300000/-as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant on account of the deficiency caused on the part of the opposite parties.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that she had taken an insurance policy with the opposite parties under HDFC life Sampooran Samridhi plan the policy number 15487404 date of commencement of policy on 03.10.2012 to 03.10.2016 for the premium amount of Rs.39436/-.  The complainant paid the annual premium without any default for five year.  The total premium paid by the complainant was Rs.197180/-.  The complainant stated that she had taken insurance on basis to tall promises of higher returns on the policy.  The maturity of the policy on 03.10.2017.  The opposite parties unilaterally credited a sum of Rs.179091/-on 18.11.2017 to the complainant’s bank.   The opposite parties deducted a sum of Rs.1809/- towards TDS, but the opposite parties failed to furnish the TDS certificate. The complainant stated that she had disputed the quantum of the amounts payable by the opposite parties on the maturity of the policy .  Further the matured amount is not liable for any tax deduction.  So the deduction is unlawful. The complainant demanded the amount deposited in her account. But the opposite party failed to give the particulars sought for by the complainant. The said particulars are provided it will show that the complainant entitled to higher amount over and above the total premium of Rs.197180/- paid by her to the opposite parties and the matured amount on 03.10.2017. The opposite parties failed to explain the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions were highly confusing self controversy evasive to avoid due payments of benefits of the policy to the complainant. The opposite parties failed to send statement of the value of the yearly subscription made by the complainant so as to enable her to take a decision regarding continuance of the policy or surrender the same. The complainant paid total premium of Rs.197180/-.  But the opposite parties paid of Rs.179091/- as maturity amount. The opposite parties failed to give the details of the said amount. As per the benefits contemplated in the policy  taken by the complainant entitled to the sum assured revisionary bonus, terminal bonus and enhanced terminal bonus sum assured on the death upto 99 years.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for clarification but failed to give the particulars and contact the complainant contact with opposite parties through email.  The complainant sent email on 10.11.2017 with queries, but no response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties sent email on 18.12.2017 informing that they have forwarded her concern to the concerned department. The opposite parties so careless.  The complainant sent notice to opposite parties on 19.02.2018. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service to the complainant.  Hence the complainant prayed to pay a sum of Rs.268165/- with compensation.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 AND 2 IN BRIEF

          The opposite parties deny allegations made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitter hereunder and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant took HDFC life sampooran Samrithi Plan to the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No.15487404 commencement of policy on 03.10.2012 to 03.10.2016 and the premium amount of Rs.39436/- per annum. The complainant had paid Rs.39236/- five year premium policy and Rs.179091/- of maturity value is paid. The complainant does not exercise the maturity benefit option 30 to 180 days before the maturity date on 03.10.2017.  If the policy holder does not chose the maturity benefit option the maturity benefit as described, “ on survival of the life assured to the end of the policy term and one the payment of all premiums due under the policy the maturity benefit to be paid to the complainant”. Further submitter that insurance is a contract of utmost good faith and the complainant is strictly bound with the terms and conditions of his policy and its benfits.  Hence the maturity claim of the complainant was paid according to the acceded policy conditions by the complainant.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed as devoid of  merits. Further submitted in the addition written version stated that the complainant had submitted policy maturity discharge voucher on 07.11.2017 by choosing enhanced cover option  hence based on her request only premium paid by her was return and her lifetime was covered till the age of 99 years and the life covered sum will be given to her nominee after her life time and further stated that the as per the policy terms maturity benefit was paid to the complainant and still she is enjoying the life cover till her age upto 99 years and the details of the policy explained to her and printed in the policy and the TDS certificate was also posted to her policy address and therefore contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant has filed written argument, proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked on their side.The opposite parties have filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 and B2 were marked on his side.

4.POINT NO :1

          The fact that the complainant has taken HDFC life Sampooran Samridhi Plan in policy no.15487404 and payment of annual premium Rs.39436/- commencing  from 03.10.2012 to 03.10.2016 for the period of five years and the policy attained maturity on 03.10.2017 were not in dispute between the parties.  According to the complainant the total premium paid  Rs.197180/- but the opposite party unilaterally credit a sum of Rs.179091/- on 18.11.2017 through NEFT to the complainants account after deducting Rs.1809/- towards TDS but the opposite parties failed to furnish the TDS certificate and further the TDS deduction is unlawful and further stated that the opposite party at the time of taking policy has given promises of higher return on the policy but they paid only Rs.179091/- even for which they have not given details to the complainant and further contended that the opposite parties are liable to pay interest on the total premium amount paid by the complainant being Rs.197180/- with 12% interest p.a. which comes to Rs.70984.80 and thus claimed Rs.268165/-  from the opposite parties and also claimed compensation alleging deficiency in service.

          5. In the version filed by the opposite parties it was contended that the complainant have accepted the policy conditions and signed in the policy document and the benefits of the policy were described in the para.3 of the policy regarding the maturity benefits and further stated that the complainant has paid annual premium of Rs.39236/- per annum and the total maturity value Rs.179091/- was paid through NEFT to the complainant on the completion of the policy period and further stated that the complainant did not exercise the maturity benefit option with 30 to 180 days before maturity date of policy and if policy holder does not choose that option the maturity benefit as described “ on survival of the life assured to the end of the policy term and one the payment of all premiums due under the policy the maturity benefit to be paid to the complainant” and further stated that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy and hence contended that there is no merits in the  complaint.  In the additional written version as well as additional proof affidavit filed by the opposite party along with two documents namely TDS certificate and policy maturity discharge voucher, it was contended that the complainant had submitted policy maturity discharge voucher on 07.11.2017 by choosing enhanced cover option  hence based on her request only premium paid by her was return and her lifetime was covered till the age of 99 years and the life covered sum will be given to her nominee after her life time and further stated that the as per the policy terms maturity benefit was paid to the complainant and still she is enjoying the life cover till her age upto 99 years and the details of the policy explained to her and printed in the policy and the TDS certificate was also posted to her policy address and therefore contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

          6.  Ex.A1 is the policy certificate, Ex.A2 is the policy conditions in which the benefits of the policy were shown in Clause No.3 as per which the policy holder may exercise maturity benefit option 30 to 180 days before maturity day and if no option to chosen the benefit described under the enhanced cash option will be payable it is further found that if enhanced cover option chosen in addition to maturity benefit payable plus bonus an additional sum assured will be payable on the death of the life assured upto age of 99 years.  It is found that though in the 1^st written version it is stated that the complainant has not chosen the maturity option but in the additional written version as well additional proof affidavit it is stated that she has chosen enhanced cover option as per which on maturity the premium amount was paid to her and her lifetime was covered till the age of 99 years and the life covered sum will be given to her nominee after her lifetime. Ex.A4 to A12 are Email communication between the complainant and opposite parties.  It is found from Ex.A14 dated 10.05.2014 the opposite party has informed that the complainant about the details of enhanced cover option and it is further found from Ex.B1 that on 07.11.2017 the complainant has chosen enhanced cover option under which an additional sum assured of Rs.135001/- is payable on the death of the life  assured upto the age of 99 years and it is found from Ex.B2 TDS certificate was given to the complainant and the tax deducted was deposited in her PAN account of the income tax department and hence the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties are liable to pay interest on Rs.197180/- and totally liable to pay Rs.268165/- is not maintainable and the complainant failed to prove how she is entitled to claim that amount by virtue of the terms and conditions of the policy which were marked as Ex.A2.  The complainant failed to prove that she is entitled to get benefits under enhanced cash option.  The details of enhanced cover option were also informed to the complainant under Ex.A14. Hence it is found that the opposite party has already paid the maturity value under the policy to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2

          Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for the amount claimed in the complaint or for  compensation as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20^th day of October 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                   MEMBER II                      PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	06.10.2012	Policy certificate issued by the opposite parties to complainant.
Ex.A2	06.10.2012	Standard policy provisions.
Ex.A3	06.10.2012	First premium receipt.
Ex.A4	10.11.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A5	12.12.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A6	15.12.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A7	16.12.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A8	18.12.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A9	21.12.2017	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A10	08.01.2018	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A11	03.02.2018	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A12	04.02.2018	Email conversation between complainant and opposite parties.
Ex.A13	19.02.2018	Complainant issued lawyer’s notice to opposite parties with postal acknowledgement card.
Ex.A14		Details of enhanced cover option.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1		HDFC life maturity discharge voucher
Ex.B2		TDS certificate.

 

 

MEMBER – I                            MEMBER II                       PRESIDENT