STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Avtar Singh Dhillon, Age 76 years, resident of House No.73, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

….…Appellant/Complainant

V E R S U S

1]     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 13th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Maharashtra, Mumbai – 400 011 through Managing Director

2]     The Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 119-120, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

3]     The Manager, HDFC Bank, SCO 288, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:   Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant, a Senior Citizen, having saving account with Opposite Party No.3 Bank, on being assured & promised by the agent of the Insurance Company about the benefits/good returns from the insurance plan, invested a sum of Rs.1.00 lac in the insurance plan.  In order to facilitate the payments of further installments of the said insurance plan, through saving bank account with Opposite Party No.3, the complainant gave an application to it (Opposite Party No.3) with a request that Rs.10,000/- as installment of the said plan be deducted from his saving bank account.  It was stated that even after receipt of Rs.1.00 lac, the Insurance Company did not issue him any policy document, nor any steps were taken to redress his grievance.  Ultimately, he requested to return his amount or to issue him FDR in lieu of the amount invested, but nothing was done by the Opposite Parties.  It was further stated that the complainant was shocked when he came to know from Opposite Party No.3 that the policy stood lapsed.  It was further stated that the complainant was never informed about the reason of lapse of the policy.  Immediately a complaint, C-2, was lodged with Opposite Party No.2, in response to which, it vide letter Ann.C-3 dated 5.12.2011, mentioned that their customer executive would contact the complainant to resolve the matter.  In the said letter the number of the policy was mentioned as 12342237.  It was further stated that, on enquiries, the officials of the Opposite Parties told that the Insurance Policy was sent at a wrong address and that they would rectify the mistake, but they never informed about the status of the policy.  Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 25.1.2012 (Ann.C-4) upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written reply, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stated that the complainant himself approached them for purchase of the insurance policy, in question, which was issued to him with an annual premium of Rs.1.00 lacs for the period of 10 years.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties received a letter/complaint (Annexure R-2) from the complainant for the first time on 2.12.2011 alleging therein about the non-receipt of policy documents.  The same was duly replied vide letter dated 13.12.2011 (Ann.R-3) stating therein that as the Company did not receive the concern of the complainant for non-receipt of the policy document, for the past 3 years, therefore, no refund could be made, at such a belated stage. More so, the complainant did not return the policy document within a period of 15 days, as provided in all policy documents, delivered to the Life Assured, by stating the reason therefor. It was further stated that since the renewal premium was not paid by the complainant, in time, resultantly, the policy lapsed.  It was further stated that the complaint was barred by time. It was further stated that, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    Initially, Opposite Party No.3 appeared through Sh.Hemant Sharma, Advocate, but subsequently it remained absent and, thus, it was proceeded against exparte by the District Forum vide order dated 22.03.2012.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant paid the amount through cheque vide receipt, C-1 dated 12.11.2008 for the purchase of the Insurance Policy, in question, with an annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of ten years but after the receipt of Rs.one lac, the Opposite Parties did not issue him any policy document nor any steps were taken to redress his grievance. She further submitted that the complainant requested the Opposite Parties to return the amount or to issue the FDR, in lieu of the amount invested by him, but no to effect.

10.                 After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the Counsel for the appellant and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint was palpably barred by time. The complainant purchased the policy on 12.11.2008 and he complained to the Opposite Parties regarding the non-receipt of the same for the first time on 02.12.2011 i.e. after the lapse of more than two years. In case, the complainant had not received the policy, he was required to write a letter to the Opposite Parties after waiting for about a month that the policy documents be sent to him. The cause of action arose to the complainant on the date of purchase of the policy. According to Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, he could file a complaint under Section 12 for redressal of grievance, within two years, from the date of accrual of cause of action. The complaint, having been filed on 10.02.2012, was palpably barred by time. The District Forum was also right in holding so.

11.                 Not only this, as is evident, from the averments contained in the complaint and conceded by the counsel for the appellant, at the time of arguments, only one annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the complainant on 12.11.2008. The term  of the policy was 10 years, and the annual premium was Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant only paid one premium. He did not pay premium for three years continuously, and wrote a letter dated 02.12.2011, Annexure R-2 for the first time. The Opposite Parties wrote a letter dated 13.12.2011, Annexure R-3, to the complainant that on account of non-payment of second annual premium, which was due on 12.11.09, the policy lapsed. Vide this letter, the complainant was also informed that, in case, he wanted the revival of the policy, he could do so, within 15 days, by making payment of Rs.3,46,000/-. The complainant, however, failed to accept this offer of the Opposite Parties. Since the policy had lapsed in 2009, and the complainant was not willing for the revival of the same, on the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure R-3, he was not entitled to the refund of the amount claimed by him, in the complaint. There was, thus, no deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party.

12.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, in limine, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld

14.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                          Sd/-

July 10, 2012                            [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg