DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.132 of 07-02-2014

Decided on 17-10-2014

Harmander Singh Brar aged about 54 years S/o Labh Singh R/o VPO Bhokhra, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Near Ahluwalia Complex, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Incharge/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased the life insurance policy bearing No.13186323 for sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/- with 3 annual premium and deposited the first premium of Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 7.10.2009. At the time of selling of the abovesaid policy the opposite party allured the complainant that his life would be insured for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- till withdrawal of the amount by him or return/refund of the amount by it to him and further allured him that after deposit of 3 regular annual premiums of Rs.30,000/- each, he can get the refund of the amount so deposited by him at anytime alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, as the said scheme is a Saving-cum-Insurance Scheme, in this way the complainant shall get almost double of the amount so deposited by him in 3 years. The opposite party conveyed the complainant that the term of the abovesaid policy is 15 years and he would remain investor beyond the period of 3 years to get the higher return without depositing any further premium and in order to get more and more interest/return, it will be the discretion of the complainant to deposit the further premiums. The officials of the opposite party obtained the signatures of the complainant on various blank printed forms without explaining him the contents thereof. No policy or its terms and conditions have been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant has deposited the premium under the bonafide impression that he has to deposit only 3 regular annual premium of Rs.30,000/- each and shall get almost double of the amount from the opposite party. On receiving the first premium receipt the complainant time and again approached the opposite party and requested it that he has not received the policy/policy documents or its terms and conditions, on this the opposite party conveyed him that he shall receive the detailed policy documents very soon and if he does not satisfy with any term and condition and is not interested to keep his policy, he can avail the free look period option and can get it cancelled on the receipt of the policy and further conveyed him that the free look period shall start on the receipt of the abovesaid policy. Thereafter again the complainant did not receive the policy documents so far. The complainant has deposited two more premiums of Rs.30,000/- each on 2.11.2010 and 14.11.2011. After deposit of 3 regular premiums the complainant stopped paying the further premium. As the complainant was not in need of money, he did not approach the opposite party to get the refund of the amount alongwith accrued interest thereof. The opposite party advised the complainant to remain investor to get the higher return and he can get the refund alongwith accrued interest as and when he is in need of money. The complainant was in need of money, so he approached the opposite party to get the surrender/fund value/refund of the amount so deposited by him alongwith accrued interest thereon, to which the officials of the opposite party told him that as he has not deposited the further premiums, his policy stands lapsed and entire amount deposited by him stands forfeited as per the terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy. The complainant requested the opposite party that as he has not received the policy or its terms and conditions, then how and why the same are applicable and further requested it that he is ready to get his policy cancelled and his amount be refunded to him, but the opposite party did not listen to him. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation or to give him any other additional, alternative or consequential relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred, as the matter relates to the insurance policy taken in the year 2009. The complainant has concealed the fact that he has paid 3 premiums from the year 2009 to 2011 and even in the receipts it is mentioned that the premium payment frequency is annual and regarding the next premium due date. The complainant had purchased the previous policy bearing No.13117509 from the opposite party. The complainant has purchased the 'Unit Linked Insurance Policy' i.e. HDFC Unit Linked Endowment Winner policy bearing No.13186323 with his own free will after understanding the terms and conditions thereof and never opted for seeking the cancellation of the abovesaid policy within the free look period of 15 days of the receipt of the policy that has been sent to him vide speed post No.EM112236426IN dated 26.10.2009. The complainant approached the opposite party and sought the cancellation of the abovesaid policy by submitting the application on 20.11.2009, which was denied. The complainant continued with the abovesaid policy for 3 years and has filed the present complaint on the false grounds. The terms and conditions of the abovesaid policy are binding between the parties being a contract as per the law laid down in case cited at 2007(2) CLT 186 (SC), 2009(4) CLT 313 (SC) and 2011(1) CLT 485 (SC). The opposite party denied that it's any official ever approached the complainant to sell the life insurance policy or allured him to purchase the policy of Rs.1,50,000/- or that he would have to pay only 3 annual premiums of Rs.30,000/- each and could withdraw the policy or get the refund of the amount deposited by him at anytime after the completion of 3 years with interest @ 24% per annum or he can get almost double of the amount after 3 years. The complainant has purchased the policy bearing No.13117509 earlier from the opposite party of his own accord by duly filling the unit link proposal form and quotation/illustration of benefits, mandate for direct debit and other documents wherein his education has been mentioned as SSC as such he cannot take the plea of illiteracy or ignorance at all. All the other allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint are also denied by the opposite party. On receipt dated 14.11.2011 the next premium due is mentioned as 7.10.2012 so the date of knowledge can easily be presumed on the date of purchase of the abovesaid policy and also on each date when the complainant deposited the premium and at the most even on 14.11.2011. From 14.11.2011 the complaint filed on 7.2.2014 is time barred i.e. beyond limitation.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant has purchased the 'Unit Linked Insurance Policy'. The First Premium Receipt, Ex.C1, shows that Plan:-UL Endowment Winner; Ex.C2, shows the Plan Description:-UL Endowment Winner and Ex.C3, again shows the Plan Description:-UL Endowment Winner. Ex.OP1/1, shows that the complainant has purchased 'HDFC Unit Linked Endowment Winner' policy. Regarding Unit Linked Insurance Policy/Plan, the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab laid down the precedent in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Revision Petition No.658/2012, decided on 23.4.2013 and Smt.Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 29.11.2011, decided on 4.7.2014 respectively, is that this complaint is not maintainable in the consumer fora, as the investment is made by the complainant in Unit Linked Insurance Policy for earning the profit.

6. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above and in the light of above referred precedents we are of the considered opinion that this complaint is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed without any order to cost. The merits of the complaint are not being touched. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/court/authority for the redressal of his grievances if so advised and permitted by law.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

17-10-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member