DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:569 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 08.09.2010

                                                           Date of Decision    : 21.04.2011

1.     Ms. Shaweta daughter of Shri Dhall Prem Kumar resident of House No.B-5, Power House 33 KW, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

2.     Mrs. Madhu Bala wife of Shri Dhall Prem Kumar resident of House No.B-5, Power House 33 KW, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ……Complainants.

VERSUS

1.    H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 5^th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mind Space Complex, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai.

2.    H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Madhya Marg Branch, Ground Floor, SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

3.    Sh. Tarsem Singh, Insurance Agent,  H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Madhya Marg Branch, Ground Floor, SCO No.139-140, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the                                complainants.

                   OPs already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Ms. Shaweta and her mother Mrs. Madhu Bala have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)                   To pay interest @18% on the amount of Rs.54,000/- from the date of withdrawal till May, 2009 to complainant No.1 and interest thereon compounded quarterly.

ii)                 To refund Rs.4,000/- along with interest @18% from the date of withdrawal till payment to complainant No.2.

iii)              To pay Rs.25,000/- to each complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iv)               To pay Rs.5,500/- to each complainant as costs of litigation.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that the approached the office of OP No.2 for opening savings account as well as fixed deposit. OP No.3 got signed from complainant No.1 an account opening form and a cheque of Rs.5,000/- dated 13.12.2008 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sector 28-C, Chandigarh was also obtained from her for opening the said account.  Similar cheque was also obtained from complainant No.2. They also got two FDRs namely “reinvestment deposit” for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively for 12 months with instructions to renew the principal plus interest. As per the complainant No.1, when she visited OP No.2 for getting her account statement, to her utter surprise, two deductions of Rs.2,000/- each and another two deductions of Rs.25,000/- each had been made making a total deduction of Rs.54,000/-. On enquiry, it was told to her that she had been issued two insurance plans/policies vide proposal No.12482127 and 12516450 and thus monthly premium installments of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively had been withdrawn through ECS from her account for two months. It was further told to her that similarly premium of Rs.2,000/- per month had been withdrawn through ECS from her account against  Plan bearing No.12478618. The complainants vide their respective letters (Annexures C-3 and C-4) wrote to OPs to cancel the said insurance plan as they had never opted for such insurance plans and further were not in the capacity to pay the monthly premium of Rs.27,000/-. The said letters were duly replied by OPs vide letters dated 23.2.2009 and 24.2.2009 (Annexures C-5 and C-6) stating therein that their complaints had been registered by OPs and that they would get back the reply shortly. It is averred that OPs thereafter sent letters dated 26.2.2009 and 3.3.2009 (Annexures C-7 and C-8) to the complainants for remitting the due premiums. Being aggrieved by these acts of OPs, the complainants served legal notices dated 21.3.2009 upon the OPs calling upon them to refund Rs.54,000/- and Rs.4,000/- illegally withdrawn from their accounts but to no avail. It is next averred that after protracted correspondence, OP admitted its fault and only refunded the amount of Rs.54,000/- in the case of complainant No.1 but no amount was refunded in the case of complainant No.2. As per the complainants, there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                Initially Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2. But he did not appear later on nor any authorised agent appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3. So, OPs No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order 17.1.2011. None appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite due service through courier, so, it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.10.2010.

4.                We have heard Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the complainant and perused the record very carefully.

5.                The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above stand corroborated from the affidavit of the complainants as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. From perusal of the documents annexed by the complainants along with their complaint particularly copies of cheques of Rs.5,000/- each (Annexures C-1 and C-2 respectively), it is very much clear that the complainants gave these two cheques to the OPs for opening  Savings Bank Account with OP No.2 – Bank. The next two important documents are letters dated 19.2.2009 written by the complainants to the Grievance Cell of OPs whereby it was stated that they never opted for insurance plan/policies and the form was got filled for the purpose of fixed deposits. In these two letters, the complainants also wrote about their being not in a position to opt for such policies and requested for cancellation of these insurance plans. The contents of one of these letters are reproduced as under: -

“This is to inform you that I had gone to the HDFC Bank Branch for booking fixed deposit. There, I met to Mr. Tarsem Singh (Insurance Officer) who mishold me above plans saying that these are F.Ds & one time investments. But I was shocked to see that every month regular money started to flow out from my A/c. When I enquired from the branch, I came to know that this is not F.D but insurance plans. I also came to know that Mr. Tarsem has left the Bank and is not contactable. I would request you that I am not in financial position of continuing such Plans. Kindly cancel the above polities and refund my full money back at the earliest.”

6.                It is the specific case of the complainants that they did not opt for any insurance plans rather they approached the OPs for the purpose of opening saving account as well as fixed deposits. Thus, from these letters, it is very much proved that OPs misrepresented the complainants by obtaining their signatures on the alleged insurance plans instead of Fixed Deposits, which is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Thus, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs despite due service to deny the same. There is even no written version of OPs on record to support the contentions made in the correspondence/letters sent to the complainants. In our considered view, issuing insurance plans to the complainants without there being any consent from their side on record and further deducting premium from their accounts against those insurance plans, amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.                In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with following directions to OPs to :-

(i)       pay to the complainant No.1 interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.54,000/-, deducted as premium, from the date of deduction till the date of its refund;

(ii)      refund Rs.4,000 to complainant No.2 along with interest @9% per annum from the date of deduction till actual payment;

(iii)            pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants costs of litigation.

8.             This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amounts along with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deductions till the date of actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

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

Announced.

21^st April 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.569 of   2010

Argued By:Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate for the                                complainants.

                   OPs already exparte.

                                                          ---

                   Arguments heard on 19.4.2011.  The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

21.04.2011          Member              President             Member