STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 198 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 02.08.2011 | Date of Decision | | 01.12.2011 |
Deep Singh, son of Sh. Inderjit Singh, resident of House No. 1208, Sec.15-B, Chandigarh. ……Appellant V e r s u s [1] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 201, 2nd Floor, Palai Plaza, Opposite Pritam Hostel, Dadar (East), Mumbai-400014. [2] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 139-140 (Ground Floor), Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ....Respondents Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Dharam Chand Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, on the inducement of an official of the OPs (now respondents), invested a sum of Rs.99,999/-, as one time investment, with them (OPs), vide Policy dated 19.07.2008. It was stated that when the complainant, came to know that he was to deposit, a sum of Rs.99,999/-, on annual basis, which was out of his reach, he immediately approached the OPs and brought to their notice, that though, it had been mentioned, in the policy, that the amount was to be deposited every year, yet he could withdraw the initially invested amount, with accrued benefits, after three years, as per the assurance, given by their official. It was further stated that, to the utter surprise of the complainant, a letter dated 16.7.2009, was received by him, whereby, he was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.99,999/-, as premium, failing which, the policy shall stand lapsed. He further submitted that the complainant, approached the OPs, and sought reasons for the same, but to no avail. Ultimately, the complainant, vide letter dated 12.01.2010, sought refund of the amount, deposited on 16.7.2008, from the OPs. In response thereto, the OPs, again asked him to deposit the premium, due on 16.7.2009, failing which, the amount deposited would be forfeited. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence 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. The OPs, put in appearance and filed written reply, whereby, they admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the complainant, obtained the policy, in question, for a term of 10 years. According to the terms and conditions thereof, he was to pay premium per annum for 10 years. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the said policy, in case of failure of the complainant, to pay the installment(s) annually, the policy was to lapse, which fact was within his knowledge. It was further stated that the complainant chose not to pay the yearly premiums. It was further stated that the complainant, failed to exercise the option, during the free look period, to cancel the policy, and return the same, to the OPs, if the terms and conditions thereof, were not acceptable to him. It was further stated that, since, the policy lapsed, as the complainant, did not deposit the annual premium for the second year, as per the terms and conditions of the same, he was not entitled to the refund of any amount. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs,nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties,and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that no option was exercised by the complainant, during the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy papers, by canceling the same, if the terms and conditions were not, acceptable to him; and that he did not deposit the premium for the second year, as a result whereof, the said policy stood lapsed and he was not entitled to the refund of any amount. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the concerned official of the OPs, at the time, when the complainant purchased the policy, induced him, that it was only one time investment policy, and the total premium, which was to be paid by him was Rs.99,999/-. He further submitted that the complainant received the policy papers, wherein, there was no clause for exercising option, within a period of 15 days, from the date of receipt thereof, for the cancellation of the same, if the terms and conditions thereof were not acceptable to him. He further submitted that he came to know, from the policy that he was to pay annual premium of Rs.99,999/-; the final premium was due on 16.07.2017; and the term of the policy was 10 years. He further submitted that he had no financial resources, to pay the annual premium of Rs.99,999/-. He further submitted that, thus, he wrote a letter to the OPs, as a result whereof, they sent a letter to the effect, that, since, he did not pay the premium, due on 16th July, 2009, the policy stood lapsed. He further submitted that the Officials of the OPs, committed fraud with him, and made a misrepresentation. He further submitted that his hard earned money, which was invested by him, in the policy, could not be forfeited by the OPs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. He further submitted that it was admitted by the complainant, in the complaint itself, that he received the policy papers, alongwith the terms and conditions, thereof on 19.07.2008. He further submitted that he was never induced by the officials of the OPs, that it was only one time investment policy and the total premium, which was to be paid by him was Rs.99,999/-, only . He further submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the policy, only after the payment of three annual premiums, continuously, guaranteed minimum surrender value of 50% of premiums paid, subsequent to the first year, in respect of the basic benefit, could be paid to the complainant. But, since the complainant failed to pay even the second annual premium, as per the terms and conditions, the said policy stood lapsed. He further submitted that, even the complainant, did not exercise option during the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy papers, by canceling the same, if the terms and conditions were not acceptable to him. He further submitted that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant, was rightly made, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It was admitted by the complainant, in para number 1 of the complaint, that he received the policy papers on 19.07.2008 C-1, alongwith the terms and conditions thereof. He paid the first premium of Rs.99,999/- on 16.07.2008. In C-1, copy of the policy, the name of the life insured is written as Deep Singh, his date of birth is mentioned as 13th August, 1971. It is further evident, from this document, that this policy was for a period of 10 years and the annual premium, which was payable, was to the tune of Rs.99,999/-. The final premium, as per the policy Annexure C-1, was due on 16.07.2017. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Standard Policy Provisions, read as under:- “3.Payment and cessation of premiums (i) The first premium must be paid along with the submission of your completed application. Subsequent premiums are due in full on the date(s) (called here the “Due Dates”) and at the frequency set out in your policy schedule. We will not accept part payment of the premium. Any statutory levy or charges including any indirect tax may be charged to you either now or in future by the Company and such amounts so charged shall become due and payable in addition to the premium and such charge shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as applicable to payment of premium. (ii) If any premium remains unpaid for 15 days after the Due Date, we may lapse your Policy with effect from the Due Date of the first unpaid premium. (iii) If premiums cease your Policy may acquire a surrender value, to be determined by us at our sole discretion. (v) If, however, you pay premiums for a continuous period of 3 years, your Policy will acquire a guaranteed minimum surrender value, which will be calculated in accordance with Provision 4 of these Provisions. 4. Guaranteed minimum surrender value If you pay premiums for a continuous period of 3 years, the guaranteed minimum surrender value of your Policy, including the value of any attaching bonuses, will be: Zero in respect of premiums paid in the first year; and 50% of premiums paid subsequent to the first year in respect of the basic benefit. 5. Lapsed Policies, Paid up policies and Reinstatement (i) Lapsed and paid up policies In the event that any premium remains unpaid for 15 days after the Due Date and your Policy has either, at our discretion, acquired a surrender value, or has acquired a guaranteed minimum surrender value, your Policy will be altered to a paid-up Policy, subject to any terms and conditions which we may specify from time to time. These terms will involve a reduction in benefits and you will be informed accordingly. Once your Policy is made paid-up it will cease to participate in profits. If, however, any premium remains unpaid for 15 days after the Due Date and your Policy does not have a surrender value, the basic benefit will lapse and no benefit will be payable to you. (ii) Reinstatement of paid-up policies If your Policy has been paid-up, it may be reinstated, subject to our consent and such terms and conditions as we may specify from time to time”. 11. It is settled principle of law, that the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy. It was a policy for 10 years, and the annual premium was Rs.99,999/-. The case of the complainant, to the effect, that he was induced by an official of the OPs, by misrepresentation, that it was only one time investment policy, and the premium of Rs.99,999/-, was to be paid only once, is rebutted by the terms and conditions of the policy, which were admittedly, received by the complainant on 19.07.2008. Since, the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the policy, they cannot wriggle out of the same. It it is evident from Clause 3 extracted above, that if the insured pays premiums for a continuous period of 3 years, his/her Policy will acquire a guaranteed minimum surrender value, which will be calculated, in accordance with Clause 4 referred to above. It is further evident from Clause 4 of the policy, extracted above, that if the insured pays premiums for a continuous period of 3 years, the guaranteed minimum surrender value of his/her Policy, including the value of any attaching bonuses, will be Zero, in respect of premium paid in the first year; and 50% of premiums paid subsequent to the first year, in respect of the basic benefit. According to Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy, in the event, any premium remains unpaid for 15 days, after the due date, and the Policy does not have a surrender value, the basic benefit will lapse and no benefit will be payable to the insured. 12. In this case the complainant paid only one premium of Rs.99,999/- on 16.07.2008. The second premium was due on 16.07.2009, but he did not pay the same, even after the lapse of 15 days, from 16.07.2009. He wrote letter Annexure C-3, on 12.01.2010, though he came to know of the terms and conditions of the policy on 19.07.2008. The date of commencement of policy was 16.07.2008, when he paid the first premium. Letter dated 12.01.2010, C-3, was written by the complainant, much after the lapse of period of payment of second premium. It was, under these circumstances, that in reply to the said letter, vide Annexure C-4 dated 19.02.2010, sent by the OPs, they informed the complainant, that the policy, which he had purchased, stood lapsed, due to non-payment of the second annual premium, which was due on 16.07.2009. Vide C-4, he was also given an option, for revival of the policy, within 15 days on payment of Rs.1,07,649/-, but he failed to do so, as he was not interested in revival, as is evident from his letter annexure C-3. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant, for the aforesaid reason, therefore, was legal and valid. The District Forum, was, thus, right, in holding that the complainant, was not entitled to any benefit, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, referred to above, as he failed to pay the premium, for the second year, and the policy stood lapsed. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 13. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any condition, contained in the policy or any letter was sent to the complainant, alongwith the policy, that he could exercise the option to cancel the same and return the documents, within 15 days, if he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions thereof. Neither there is any such condition mentioned in the policy, nor separate letter was attached with the same, mentioning therein, that the insured could exercise the option for the cancellation of policy, within 15 days, from the date of receipt of the same. Since, no such condition was mentioned, in the terms and conditions of the policy, nor any separate letter, mentioning therein, such condition, was sent to the complainant, the question of his exercising the option of cancelling the policy, within 15 days of free look period, from the date of receipt of the same, did not at all arise. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, are not supported by any evidence, on record. The findings of the District Forum, to this extent, therefore, being illegal, are revered. 14. No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the parties. 15. The net result, is that, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum, is upheld. 17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. December 1, 2011 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
