Punjab

StateCommission

FA/1312/2013

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sarika Gupta & Sanjay Gupta

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB      DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.1312 of 2013                                                  

             Date of institution  :    29.11.2013

Date of decision     :    24.02.2015

 

Bahadur Singh S/o Kartar Singh, R/o Village Pharala, Tehsil Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

…….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, through its           Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, City District Shaheed Bhagat       Singh Nagar.

2.      HDFC Bank, through its Branch Manager, G.T. Road,     Phagwara, Paradise Theater, Phagwara City.

3.      HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, through its           Vice President-Customer Service, Ramon House, HT Parekh          Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-     400020, India.

                                                          …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 19.09.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

 

   For the appellant              : Ms Sarika Gupta, Advocate.

   For respondents No.1&3: Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.

   For respondent No.2       : None.     

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant, Bahadur Singh, against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by him, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to him to approach the appropriate Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant was having Account No.13311000057019 in HDFC Bank-opposite party No.2. He fell prey to the sweet tongue of the sale representatives of the bank and was misinformed about the insurance policy and the impact thereof. He was mis-sold four insurance policies in his name and at the time of mis-selling thereof, it was disclosed to him that in case he was not satisfied with any of the insurance policies, the same would be cancelled and the amount shall be refunded immediately. When he came to know about the mis-selling of the policies, on account of the collusion between opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, he immediately filed complaint against them and he was assured that all the four policies had been cancelled and payment would be made to him very shortly. While acting in a clandestine manner, the payment was made only in respect of three policies and the payment of the fourth policy was retained with malice. He had been approaching the opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 time and again and requesting them for cancellation of the fourth policy. He was again informed that the policy had been cancelled and he need not worry about the payment and would get the amount advanced by him, after some time. However, neither the policy was cancelled nor the amount was refunded. When he approached opposite party No.1, he was treated shabbily. This act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. He served a legal notice upon them for immediately returning the insurance amount and to pay the damages for harassment and mental torture, but no reply was received. He prayed that the opposite parties be directed to return the insurance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date ofdeposit till the realization of that amount; to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the harassment and mental torture; and Rs.11,000/-, as the litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by opposite party Nos.1 & 3, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. Opposite party No.2 did not come present before the District Forum, in spite of its service and was proceeded against ex parte. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 in their written reply admitted that four policies, in question, were sold to the complainant. They did not deny that three of the policies were cancelled and amount thereof was refunded to the complainant. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that the policies were never mis-sold to the complainant and he himself was interested in purchasing the same. It was specifically told to him that in case he would not be satisfied with the terms and conditions thereof, he would have an option to surrender the same within 15 days’ “Free Look Period”. A request was received from his side about the mis-selling of the policies, upon which, investigation was got conducted by them and the entire amount towards those policies was refunded to him, in spite of the fact that they had born the expenses upon the issuance thereof and had also paid the necessary statutory charges and Government taxes. The complainant also received the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from them in respect of the fourth policy on 19.06.2013. His entire grievance stands removed and his complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint against them and the same has been filed, after creating a false story. The complainant himself had submitted the proposal form/application dated 12.08.2011 for the purchase of the insurance policy, which was accepted by them and policy No.14549449 dated 12.08.2011 was issued to him and the same is still in force. It is only with an ulterior motive and to harass and humiliate them that the present complaint has been filed. The same is not maintainable. They prayed for the dismissal thereof with special costs; being false, frivolous and vexatious.
4.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, by ignoring the evidence produced on the record and the law applicable to the facts of the case. The complainant specifically alleged in the complaint that the policies were mis-sold by opposite parties No.1 & 2, in collusion with each other and opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 in their written reply did not deny that the policies were so sold by these opposite parties, though they took up the ground that the same were never mis-sold by them and were purchased by the complainant himself. They in that written reply pleaded in so many words that the policies were issued by opposite parties Nos.1 & 3. It was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the same were sold by Phagwara Branch. In fact, the proposal form was filled up by the complainant at Phagwara, but the application for obtaining the policies was addressed to the Branch at Jalandhar. Thus, part of cause of action had arisen within the local limits of jurisdiction of the District Forum at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, where opposite party No.1 is running the insurance business. Therefore, the complaint could not have been dismissed, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
7. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 that from the evidence produced by the opposite parties; consisting of the affidavit of Harsimran Singh, Deputy Manager Ex.RW-1/A and the documents proved on the record, it stands proved that the proposal form was filled up by the complainant and was submitted to opposite party No.3 at Phagwara and the policies were also issued only by that opposite party and not by opposite party No.1. It was correctly concluded by the District Forum that no part of cause of action accrued to the complainant within the local limits of jurisdiction of the District Forum at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. Therefore, there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
8. The allegation made by the complainant that the policies were sold by opposite party No.1 also, was never challenged by opposite parties Nos.1 & 3. No doubt, in Para No.4 of the preliminary objections, they averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against them to file the present complaint, but in reply to Para Nos.3 to 5 of the complaint, they themselves pleaded that the entire amount paid by the complainant towards the policies, in question, was refunded to him; irrespective of the fact that all the policies were issued by opposite parties Nos.1 & 3 and they had to bear the expenses regarding the issuance thereof. The same fact was reiterated by Harsimran Singh, Deputy Manager, in his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. Even the application form Ex.R-2; on the basis of which, the policies were issued, was addressed to the Branch of this insurance company at Jalandhar and not to its Branch at Phagwara. From the evidence, so produced on the record and which has been discussed above, it stands proved that the insurance policies were issued by opposite parties Nos.1 & 3. Opposite party No.1 is carrying on the business of insurance at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, where, a part of cause of action had accrued. Therefore, the District Forum of that District had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The finding recorded by it, to the contrary, is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is remanded back to it for deciding the same afresh on merits.
10. Parties are directed to appear before it on 13.04.2015. Records of the District Forum be returned immediately.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

1.  

    

    

                                                           (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT  

                                                            

    

    

                                                           (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                            

    

    

                                                         (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

   February 24, 2015                                       MEMBER

   (Gurmeet S)