DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Jagdish Parshad s/o Sh. Atma Ram, resident of H.No. 232, Part-B, Khuda Lohra, Chandigarh.

                   ---- Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited, SCO No. 51-52, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its General Manager – 160017.

2.       HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office Ramon House, H T Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020, through its Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:      SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU             MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, allured by the rosy pictures shown by the agent of the Opposite Parties, to invest in their company to get the handsome returns, the Complainant decided to purchase one insurance policy from the Opposite Parties. As a sequel thereto, the agent of the Opposite Parties approached the Complainant, and got his on the proposal form and received an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of the 1^st premium. However, no terms and condition were explained by the agent to the Complainant, except allurement of getting handsome returns from the policy. On 28.06.2012, the Complainant approached the office of Opposite Party No. 1 and informed about non-receiving of the policy document, upon which he was told to give his grievance in writing. Accordingly, the Complainant wrote letter dated 28.6.2012, duly received by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein he categorically mentioned that he did not receive the policy documents and had only received one SMS on 15.5.2012 stating “HDFC LIFE POLICY doc No. 14965839 dispatched on 28.3.2012 returned undelivered”. After perusing the record, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that the Policy document is lying in their office, and told him to receive the policy document. The Complainant claims that after carefully perusing the policy document, he found that the address on the policy document was incorrect and told the Opposite Party No.1 that he wants to surrender the policy, upon which he was advised to give a request along with other documents required to surrender the policy. It is alleged that the intention of the Opposite Parties was to expire the period of 30 days free look period in order to usurp hard earned money of the Complainant. The copy of the letter dated 28.6.2012 proving the receiving of policy document and willingness to surrender the policy is at Annexure C-1.  On 30.6.2012, the Complainant vide his letter Annexure C-2 handed over the original policy document along with the cancelled cheque, a copy of PAN card and a copy of the grievance letter, with a request to cancel the policy. Thereafter, on 11.07.2012, the Complainant sent e-mail to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-3), mentioning that he received a letter dated 2.7.2012 from Opposite Party No.2, wherein it has been mentioned that his complaint was registered. After waiting for a considerable time, when there was no positive response from the side of Opposite Parties, the Complainant sent an e-mail dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure C-4) about the harassment being suffered by him at the hands of the Opposite Parties, in response to which the Opposite Parties vide their reply Annexure C-5 admitted that the policy document has not been received within time by the Complainant. As a matter of great surprise, when the Complainant had surrendered the policy, within the free look period, the Opposite Parties are forcing him to retain the policy document, irrespective of the fact that the same had already been returned to the Opposite Parties. According to the Complainant the act & conduct of the Opposite Parties in non-refunding the premium amount even after receiving the surrender request along with original policy document and other documents required for cancellation of policy is an unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Parties due to which he had not only suffered financial loss but also mental agony & physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not duly verified, but is supported by a detailed affidavit of the Complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Parties in their joint reply while denying that the Complainant was ever allured to invest in the insurance policy, pleaded that the Life Assured had submitted a proposal/application dated 25.2.2012 for the purchase of HDFC SL Classic Assure Insurance Plan, which was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided and consequently, a Policy was issued bearing Policy No. 14965839 dated 27.02.2012 and the same commenced on 25.02.2012. The premium @ Rs.10,000/- was to be paid half-yearly. The copy of policy was received by the Complainant by hand on 28.6.2012. The answering Opposite Parties claim that in the proposal form, duly filled in and signed by the Complainant, he has mentioned his residential address as “House No.22, Khudda Lahora Colony, Chandigarh” and copy of policy was sent to the Complainant on 29.2.2012 on the said address, which was received back on 20.3.2012 with the reason “Out of Station”. It is submitted that if the Complainant would deliberately not receive the policy documents then free look in cancellation would deemed to be waived off and as such would not be available. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                   The reply of Opposite Parties is duly verified, and is supported by a detailed affidavit of Mr. Harsimran Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal), HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited.

4.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

5.                The Complainant had subscribed for a policy by paying a premium of Rs.10,000/- vide proposal form no. S000037049170 annexed as Annexure R-2. The Complainant claims that the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the policy to him and was only received by him on 28.6.2012, when he had gone to the office of Opposite Party No.1 to register the non-receipt of the Policy. This letter was received by Opposite Party No.1 and on the same day, the policy document, too, was handed over to the Complainant, which he duly received, and also admits of its receipt at his end on the given date.   

6.                The Complainant, after the receipt of the policy document, preferred to surrender the same, vide his communication dated 30.6.2012, which is Annexure C-2. The Opposite Parties, however, did not entertain the request of the Complainant for the refund of the premium amount paid by him, even after having received the surrender request, within a free look period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of the policy document.  The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the Complainant have withstood their ground of retaining the premium as they claim that they had duly dispatched the policy document, immediately, but was returned to its office, due to the non-availability of the Complainant on the given address. Opposite Parties while fortifying its claim, claims that the policy documents were once again sent at the address of the Complainant, but were returned for the same reasons.  Hence, according to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief, as the Opposite Parties are in no manner deficient in rendering proper service towards him.

7.                We have perused the offer letter sent along with the policy documents which is annexed as Exhibit R-3 (Pg. 21 of the reply), wherein under the heading “CANCELLATION IN THE FREE LOOK PERIOD”, it is clearly mentioned as under:-

“In case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the Policy and the details in the proposal form, you have the option of returning the Policy to us stating the reasons thereof within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy…..”

                   On going through the aforementioned clause of the offer letter, the Complainant was well within his rights to request the cancelation of the policy issued to him within a free look in period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy. As it is abundantly clear that the policy document was received by the Complainant on 28.6.2012, in person, and had surrendered the same on 30.06.2012 to the Opposite Parties along with his request (Annexure C-2), hence, the Complainant is entitled to the cancellation of his policy and on the basis of his cancelation, he is entitled to the refund of the premium (-) the applicable administrative charges. The Opposite Parties while arguing the matter at length have claimed that the Complainant is not entitled to any amount as no reason has been assigned for the cancellation of the policy. We feel that the contents of the present complaint are sufficient reasons for him to seek the cancellation of the policy and is entitled for the refund of the amount which is due towards him, after deduction of the applicable administrative charges. The judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties titled as Life Insurance Corpn. of India & Ors. Versus Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & Ors. is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it covers the issue of refund of premium after its lapse for non payment of the premium amount, which is all together different from the merits, facts and pleadings of the present complaint. Hence on having received the request for cancellation of the policy well within the free look period, the act of not cancelling the policy not refunding the amount of premium after necessary deductions amounts to deficiency in service. Hence in the given situation the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed against the opposite parties.   

8.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is Allowed jointly and severally qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed, to:-

[a]    To pay the amount of premium after deduction of administrative charges;

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

9.                The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] & [b] of para 8 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

10.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28^th February, 2013.                                                                                         

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER