BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 Date of Institution: 5.3.2015
Date of Decision: 26.8.2015
Sukhdev Singh, Aged 35 years, Son of Gurmej Singh, Resident of Village Warpal, PO: Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
....... Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11th Floor Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahallaxmi, Mumbai-400011, through its authorized signatory.
- Sahil Arora, SDM-CA having employee code 130151 of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, C/o HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Makhu, PO: Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
- HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Makhu, PO: Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur through its Branch Manager.
- Sukhmander Singh, M.L. Code 00570260 of HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Makhu, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 //2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Bajaj, Advocate.
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Harish Dhingra, Advocate.
For opposite parties Nos.2&3 : Ex-parte.
For opposite parties No.4 : Given up by the complainant.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has a saving account no.23621740003107 with opposite party No.3. On dated 11.12.2014, the complainant was in the bank premises of opposite party No.3, where opposite party No.2 presented himself to be the employee of opposite party No.3 and persuaded the complainant to purchase a life insurance policy, which was sold to the complainant by saying wrong features by opposite party No.2
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 //3//
that it will be for five years, the complainant can withdraw the amount at any time during said period. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 got the signature of the complainant on blank proposal form and other documents and withdrawal voucher and other forms. No such document was filled by the complainant. Further it has been pleaded that opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.1, in connivance with opposite party No.3 and 4, had miss-sold the policy in question bearing No.17277396, commenced on 16.12.2014, to the complainant for annual premium of Rs.50,000/- with premium paying terms of 15 years. On receipt of the policy in question, complainant had approached the opposite parties and requested them to cancel the policy within the stipulated period within fifteen days on account of miss-selling the same. Thereafter, the complainant got e-mailed a complaint to opposite party No.1 and then on 12.2.2015 the complainant submitted complaint to the branch office of opposite party No.1 at Faridkot and requested for cancellation of policy and refund of the amount of the complainant. The complainant also requested to take action against opposite party No.2 for miss-selling by saying wrong features, but to no effect. Further it has been pleaded that the policy in question was issued on 16.12.2014 and the policy was continuous one as the same was not being cancelled ever after requests of the complainant time and again. Pleading
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 //4//
deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- for which the policy in question was issued illegally and wrongly by misspelling the same by saying wrong features, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the filing of the present complaint till realization, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 took some preliminary objection interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1; that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; that the insurance policy was rightly issued as per proposal submitted, there is no miss-selling, misrepresentation or fraud against the complainant; that complainant failed to approach the opposite party for cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the said insurance policy and that as per the terms and conditions of the policy insured persons were liable to pay annual premium, but the insured person failed to pay premium after payment of one installment and as such as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance policy was lapsed. On
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 //5//
merits, it has been pleaded that the insurance policy was purchased by the complainant as per his own option based upon the proposal form followed by declaration submitted by the complainant. The terms and conditions of the policy have duly been explained to him and signed the same after understanding contents of the policy. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/8 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
5. Present dispute is regarding unit linked insurance policy. In view of precedent laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2014, titled as “ Smt. Paramjit Kaur Versus Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited”, decided on 4.7.2014, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to
C.C. No. 103 of 2015 //6//
seek his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
26.8.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
