Haryana

Karnal

308/13

Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Pawan Sharma

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No. 308 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.  09.07.2013

                                                               Date of decision:26.09.2016

 

 Raju son of Ganga Ram resident of VPO Agondh near Purshotam Bhawan, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited registered office at Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020 through its M.D.

2. Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Narayan Plaza SCO 778-779, Kunjpura Road, opposite Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Ramesh Kumar Sales Manager HDFC Insurance Company SCO 778-779 Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

                                                                             …………Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Pawan Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri  Vikas Bakshi Advocate for opposite parties.

         

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 on the averments that one Ramesh Kumar Sales Manager of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 contacted him on telephone and told that opposite parties had a very good single premium insurance scheme, which was very beneficial and fixed a meeting with him in the office of opposite parties for detailing the salient features of the policy. Said Ramesh Kumar told him that if he would deposit Rs.50,000/- as a single premium, then his life will be insured for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and after 10 years he would get the said amount alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. On the basis of the said assurance, he deposited Rs.50,000/- with opposite party on 6.2.2013 and policy no.15800022 was received by him through post on 25.2.2013. After going through the policy, he was surprised to see that the terms and conditions were not the same as told to him by Sales Manager. The policy was not single premium policy, rather it was for a term of 11 years, the sum assured was Rs.5,32,900/- and he was to deposit Rs.48,500/- annually for 11 years. As the terms and conditions were not agreeable to him, he made a request for cancellation of the policy and as per clause ‘option to withdraw’ returned the policy to the opposite parties on 4.3.2013. Thereafter, he requested the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him alongwith interest thereon, but the amount was not refunded. He made an enquiry from Customer Care and then he was intimated that he had sent request on 6.3.2013 to stop cancellation, therefore, the policy was again issued to him. He immediately approached opposite party no.2 and requested that he had not given any request for stopping the cancellation. He moved application to opposite party no.2 for cancellation of the policy, for refund of the amount and for taking action against the person, who allegedly made request for stopping the cancellation. He moved such application on 16.3.2013. However, the opposite parties neither refunded the amount deposited by him nor took any action on his application. Thus, the acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is nothing but a suit for declaration in guise and such a relief cannot be granted by this forum while exercising its jurisdiction; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, the factum of issuing the insurance policy has not been disputed. It has been submitted that before taking the policy the terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant and after understanding features of the policy, he obtained the policy and provided the documents. He received policy document on 15.2.2013 and gave request for cancellation of the policy on 4.3.201. As the request was not made within freelook period, the request was declined by the opposite parties. The request to cancel the policy was not within the freelook period, therefore, the letter dated 6.3.2013 was of no importance. Once the customer received the policy documents on 15.2.2013 then there was no need to send the policy documents again to the customer. Such afterthought story has been made by the complainant only to get the relief and to harass the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C3 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Amit Khanna Ex.OPW1/A and documents  Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                It is not in dispute that the complainant obtained the policy from the opposite parties and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as premium on 6.2.2013. As per the case of the complainant, the policy was received by him on 25.2.2013 and he made request for cancellation of the policy on 4.3.2013 within 15 days ‘option to withdraw’ period. The opposite parties have alleged that policy was received by the complainant on 15.2.2013 and the application for cancellation of the policy was moved beyond the period of 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had moved for cancellation of the policy and return the policy documents to the opposite parties within Freelook period of 15 days of the receipt of the policy.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties put a great thrust upon the contention that the complainant had given letter dated 5.3.2013, the copy of which is Ex.O4 that he was satisfied with the policy and requested not to cancel the policy within Freelook period, therefore, the request received for cancellation of the policy on 4.3.2013 was not considered. It has further been canvassed that the application/complaint, the copy of which is Ex.O3, was moved by the complainant on 16.3.2013 alleging that request for not cancelling the policy filed on 6.3.2013 was forged. The said letter was moved after the period of 15 days of the receipt of the policy, because as per the case of the complainant the policy was received by him on 25.2.2013, therefore, under such circumstances, the request of the complainant was rightly  declined, vide letter dated 23.3.2013, the copy of which is Ex.O2.

8.                The complainant has submitted that he received the policy documents on 25.2.2013. The opposite parties in their written statement pleaded that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 15.2.2013, but no document worth the name has been produced by the opposite parties, which may show that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 15.2.2013. The opposite parties must be having the record of sending the policy documents to the complainant through post and that could be the best evidence to prove that the policy documents were sent before 15.2.2013 and delivered to complainant on 15.2.2013, but that record has been withheld by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the opposite parties, in this regard.

The complainant has filed affidavit that the policy documents were received by him through simple post of 25.2.2013. In the absence of any documentary evidence on behalf the opposite parties, there is no reason to disbelieve his affidavit regarding date of receipt of the policy documents.

9.                It is admitted fact that the complainant had moved application for cancellation of the policy on 4.3.2013. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the letter dated 5.3.2013, the copy of which is Ex.O4, given by the complainant regarding his satisfaction towards the policy and request for not cancelling the same. It is pertinent to note that the complainant in his letter dated 16.3.2013 made complaint to the opposite parties that the alleged letter given on 6.3.2013 on his behalf was forged and he requested for refund of his amount and for taking action against the concerned person, who had moved such letter on his behalf. This forum cannot go into the question as to whether the letter dated 5.3.2013 on behalf of the complainant was forged and fabricated, because such a question can be decided by the Judicial Courts on producing elaborate evidence, whereas this forum is to decide the matter by adopting summary procedure. It is important to point out that the opposite parties have neither made any reference of the letter dated 5.3.2013 given by the complainant for continuing his policy nor referred to such letter in the letter dated 23.3.2013 declining the request of the complainant. Under such circumstances, it is quite evident that the opposite parties did not rely upon the alleged letter of the complainant dated 5.3.2013 for continuing the policy. Had the opposite parties relied upon any such letter then the fact must have been mentioned in the order dated 23.3.2013, while declining the request of the complainant. Therefore, no importance can be attached to the said letter. It is established that the policy documents were received by the complainant on 25.2.2013 and admittedly he had moved application for cancellation of the policy on 4.3.2013 well within the period of 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents.  Therefore, under such facts and circumstances the opposite parties were not justified in declining the request of the complainant and such act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  We further direct the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. It is further made clear that if the abovesaid amount will not be paid within stipulated period of 30 days then the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 26.09.2016

                                                                                       (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member