BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 29^th day of June 2017

Filed on : 19-11-2013

PRESENT:

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

(president-in-charge)

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.789/2013

Between

Babu Mark Thannikal, : Complainant

Thannikal house, 192(A), (By Adv. Bechu Kurian Thomas,

Kadungamangalam P.O., Floor D, Lipids House, Plot G-285,

Thiruvankulam, Kochi-682 305. MainAvenue, Panampilly Nagar,

Cochin-36)

And

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance : Opposite parties

Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, (By Adv. Saji Isaac K.J., 311 H.B.

Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Flats, Panampilly Nagar,

Marg, 169, Backbay Cochin-36)

Reclamation, Churchgate,

Mumbai-400 020.

rep. by its Manager.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance

Co. Ltd., Branch Office,

Pallath Enclave, Ravipuram

Junction, M.G. Road,

Kochi-682 015.

O R D E R

Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

1. 1. Facts of the case

The complainant is a policy holder of the 1^st opposite party announced in the name and style 'HDFC Children's Double Benefit Plan' vide policy No. 12750999. The complainant had subscribed to the above policy on 16-03-2009. The policy was for a period of 15 years. The complainant had paid the 1^st annual premium of Rs. 1,11,900/- on 16-03-2009 itself. The 2nd premium of Rs. 1,11,900/- was also paid on 12-03-2010 and 19-03-2010 as per the stipulation. All premiums were paid at the office of the 2^nd opposite party. While so, due to some unforeseen financial stringencies, the complainant was not able to remit the instalments. After payment of premium for 2 years, the complainant decided to discontinue the policy taken by him and the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to do the needful for withdrawing the above policy and for making arrangements for returning the amount already remitted by him. But 2^nd opposite party was reluctant to return the amount remitted by the complainant. The act of the opposite parties is not refunding the premium amounts paid by the complainant amounted to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. On 24-12-2011, the complainant issued a notice to the 1^st opposite party demanding refund of the premium amount remitted by him. The 1^st opposite party issued a reply dated 30-12-2011 stating that the matter is pending consideration and that it will be resolved within 2 weeks. But the opposite parties ha not resolved the matter even after the lapse of one and a half years. The above act on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking orders of this Forum to the opposite parties directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 2,23,800/- remitted by the complainant towards premium amount in respect of the policy No. 12750999 issued by the opposite parties along with interest @ 12% p.a., to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

1. 2. Notices were issued from this Forum to the 1^st opposite party, HDFC standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Registered office, Mumbai and to the 2^nd opposite party HDFC standard Life Insurance Ltd., Branch Office, Kochi. In response to the notices served on them, the opposite parties filed their version.

   3. Version of the opposite parties.

It is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation period hence not maintainable. The last premium was paid by the complainant on 19-0-3-2010. But the complaint has been filed in October 2013 after a lapse of 2 years. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. According to the provisions of the Protection of the Policy Holder Interest Regulation 2002, the complainant had the option to return the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy documents and it is only after being convinced of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant submitted the proposal and taken the policy for a term of 15 years, any default in the payment of premium will affect the benefits available under the policy. It is further submitted that a contract of Insurance is a contract based on the terms and conditions of the policy and those terms and conditions of the policy are binding on the parties to the contract. The complainant had taken HDFC children's Double benefit Plan with a term of 15 years and paid the annual premium of Rs. 1,11,900/-. As admitted by the complainant he had remitted only two instalments of the premium for the 1^st two years and the policy taken by the complainant did not have a surrender value and hence no benefit is payable to the complainant. The contention of the complainant that he is legally entitled to get back the amount remitted by him is false and hence denied and having availed the benefits under the policy the complainant is not entitled to get back the amount of premium remitted by him. It is further submitted that the policy lapsed only because of the inaction of the complainant in not paying the premium required under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence no cause of action arose to file this complaint before this Forum. The opposite parties therefore sought for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

1. 2. The issues to be decided in this case

(i) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of premium amount of Rs. 2,23,800/- remitted by him towards a premium in the policy No. 12750999, with interest.

(iii). Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties along with costs.

1. 2. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 on the part of the complainant and the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant were marked as Exbt. A1 to A7. The opposite parties have have not adduced any oral evidence. The documentary evidence furnished by the opposite parties were marked as Exbt. B1.

   3. Issue No. (i). The opposite parties contended that this complaint is barred by period of limitation of 2 years since the last premium was paid by the complainant on 19-03-2010 and this complainant was filed only on 19-11-2013 not within 2 years from 19-03-2010. But the instant policy taken by the complainant is for a term of 15 years. Hence the cause of action is a continuing cause of action and hence the complaint is not barred by period of limitation as envisaged in Sec. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The first issue is thus decided in favour of the complainant.

   4. Issue No. (ii) There is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant had taken the HDFC children Double Benefit Plan with a term of 15 years and the annual premium was fixed at Rs. 1,11,900/- and the complainant had paid 2 annual premia of Rs. 2,23,800/-. The opposite parties contended that the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premium from the third year of the policy in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite parties have submitted/furnished Exbt. B1 policy document before this Forum. We have gone through the policy document and it is of fine print therefore not readable with naked eyes. Hence the above terms and conditions are not binding on the complainant as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Moreover, the non-inclusion of a provision to surrender the policy with long term of 15 years is nothing but an unfair trade practice practised by the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to convince this Forum that they have convinced the complainant of the period of 15 days to reject the proposal to join the policy. Since the policy terms and conditions are not binding due to the reason that the terms and conditions were in fine print which are not readable with naked eyes we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs. 2,23,800/- paid by the complainant towards 1^st two premia, along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. thereon from the date of last payment of the premium till realization.

   5. Issue No. iii. The opposite parties are also found liable to pay the complainant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant. The genuine request of the complainant is not redressed by the opposite party when the complainant approached the opposite parties. He was unnecessarily dragged to the Forum to redress his grievance and the complainant has to spent his valuable money and time to contest this case. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings which we fix at Rs. 5,000/-.

   6. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows:

i. The opposite parties shall refund Rs.2,23,800/- paid by the complaint with 18% thereon from the date of last payment i.e. from 19-03-2010 till realization.

ii. The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice practiced by opposite parties in not including surrender provision in long term policies.

iii. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of June 2017

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

(president – in – charge)

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

APPENDIX

Complainant's Exhibits :

Exbt. A1 : HDFC Children's double

benefit plan

A2 : First premium receipt

dt. 26-03-2009

A3 : Copy of renewal premium receipt

dt. 19/03/2010

A4 : True copy of receipt

dt. 12-03-2010

A5 : True copy of letter dt. 24-12-2011

A6 : Copy of letter dt. 30-12-2011

A7 : Power of attorney

Opposite party's exhibits:

Exbt. B1 : Policy documents

Deposition

PW1 : Aleyamma C

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post : By Hand: