CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.675/2007
SH. LALIT MOHAN MADAN
R/O W-135, G.K. PART-I,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. Complainant
Vs.
- BRANCH HEAD
HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
22, COMMUNITY CENTER,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110065
- MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
RAMON HOUSE, H.T. PARIKH MARG-169
BACKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCH GATE,
MUMBAI-400020
…………..Respondents
Date of Order:08.06.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
In brief the case of the complainant is that on 06.1.2007, one of the representative of the OPs met the complainant and told him about the benefits of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan. After hearing the benefits of the policy, the complainant gave him a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs as premium towards the above policy. The cheque was duly encashed by OP.
It is further stated that vide letter dated 22.1.07 OP-1 informed the complainant that insurance policy has been issued in his name. The insurance policy and other relevant documents were also enclosed with the said letter. In the said letter the option for withdrawal from the policy was given to the complainant in the event of his not agreeing to any of the provisions stated in the policy. The complainant was given 15 days time from the receipt of the policy to withdraw from the policy.
It is further stated that complainant was shocked to go through the terms, conditions and benefit of the Insurance Policy enclosed with the above said letter as the benefits and terms of the scheme which were disclosed to the complainant by the representative of the OP at the time of offering the policy were totally different from those mentioned in the policy.
Complainant opted to withdraw from the policy and vide letter dated 25.1.2007 requested OP-1 to cancel the policy with immediate effect and return the premium amount. Complainant again sent a letter on 19.3.2007 for the return of the premium amount paid by him. Complainant also sent a letter on 03.5.2007 to the Grievance Redressal Officer, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. demanding return of the premium.
It is further stated that vide letter dated 02.5.2007, OP-1 intimated to complainant that complainant has agreed to continue with the policy as per his alleged verbal discussion with one Ms. Bhavna Chadda, the same is wrong and incorrect especially when the complainant has written many letters to OP-1 for cancellation of policy and for return of the premium amount. It is submitted that OPs have alleged in the letter dated 02.5.2007 that they were continuously trying to contact the complainant as part of their investigation on the number available in their record i.e. 9811009455 which is false, frivolous and concocted story because the mobile number of complainant given on the application form was 9811009955. It is further stated that finally vide letter dated 26.6.2007, OPs without any reason refused to cancel the policy and refund the premium paid by the complainant. Thereafter complainant wrote letters to OPs time and again for refund of the amount but OPs delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally, complainant issued legal notice dated 17.8.2007 to OPs. The legal notice sent by the complainant was replied by OP-1 vide letter dated 12.9.2007 with a false contention that OP received a predated letter alongwith policy documents, which was dated 25.1.2007. It is stated that OP created false documents and false story to avoid refund of the premium. It is stated that it is a clearcut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
It is prayed that OP be directed to refund premium amount of Rs.2 lakh with interest @ 24% p.a. and also to pay Rs.1 lakh towards harassment and Rs.33,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
OP in the written statement took the plea that the complainant has not cancelled the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the letter dated 22.1.2007 rather sent a predated letter dated 25.1.2007 which was received by OP on 27.2.2007 after 15 days from the date of delivery of policy. It is further stated that since withdrawal request was received after 15 days, the request for cancellation could not be processed and consequently the amount paid towards premium could not be refunded. It is further stated that OP tried to get in touch with the complaint but despite the repeated efforts to reach him on the number provided by the complainant, he could not be reached. It is further stated that on 24.4.2007 Ms Bhavna Chadda, Corporate Manager of the company had a discussion with the complainant whereby the features of the policy were explained to the complainant and complainant agreed to continue with the above mentioned policy. It is stated that notice was duly replied and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP hence the complaint may be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for parties and carefully perused the records. The complainant has proved on record that he sent the cancellation notice dated 25.1.2007 on 27.1.2007. He placed on record postal receipt dated 27.1.2007 and the acknowledgement card which bears stamp of OP showing that the same was duly received by OP on 29.1.2007. These documents on record prove beyond doubt that the cancellation notice dated 25.1.2007 was sent by complainant on 27.1.2007 and the same was duly received by OP on 29.1.2007. It is significant to note that apart from the letter dated 25.1.2007, complainant has also sent a letter on 19.3.2007 referring to his earlier letter dated 25.1.2007 and requesting for the refund of the policy amount. Again a letter was sent by the complainant to OP on 03.5.2007, the postal receipts are placed on record. OP has written a letter dated 02.5.2007 to the complainant wherein they have apologized for delay in replying to the complainant’s letter dated 25.1.2007 regarding the aforesaid policy being wrongly sold to him. It is further stated in this letter that in fact OP continuously tried to contact him on the number 9811009455 with regard to the said issue. However due to lack of revert from his side, they are unable to advance with their plan of action. In the letter, it is also stated that Ms. Bhavna Chadda explained broad features and after that complainant agreed to continue with the said policy. That letter was promptly replied by the complainant vide letter dated 03.5.2007 on 04.5.2007. The postal receipts are placed on record whereby it is stated that he has not given any consent to Bhavna Chadda for continuation of the said policy and stated that in her earlier correspondence he has mentioned the reasons for cancellation of policy.
The most important thing is that in his letter dated 02.5.2007 the OP has nowhere stated that the letter dated 25.1.2007 was predated or the same was received on 27.2.2007. In fact if the letter was really received on 27.2.2007, there was no need of contacting the complainant because after the expiry of 15 days, the policy could not be cancelled and the premium amount could not be refunded. Prior to this letter dated 02.5.2007, OP has written letter dated 14.2.2007. It is nowhere stated by OP that the letter dated 25.2.2007 was predated and received on 27.2.2007. It is proved on record from the acknowledgement that letter dated 25.1.2007 was received by OP on 29.1.2007.
So far as the efforts of OP to contact complainant on number 9811009455 is concerned, the same is wrong because even as per the policy sent by the OP to complainant vide letter dated 22.1.2007 the contact number was 9811009955 and not the one on which OP alleged to have tried to contact the complainant.
There is no doubt that the plea taken in the written statement regarding predated letter as well as contacting the complainant is wrong. It a case of clearcut deficiency in service on the part of OP. The policy was duly cancelled by the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the letter and OP were bound to pay the premium amount.
OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.2 lakhs to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date when the amount was paid to the OP and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
