Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/144/2012

K.Gunasekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K.M.Vijayan Associate

08 Jun 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   20.06.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :   08.06.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 144 /2012

THURSDAY THIS  8^TH   DAY OF JUNE 2017

K. Gunasekaran,

S/o. Shri. K.S. Kadhirvelu,

Residing at No.3/86,

Sundareswarar Koil Street,

Kovur,

Chennai 600 122.                                       .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

The Vice President,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

T. Nagar Branch,

Venkatanarayana Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                         .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. K.M. Vijayan Associates.    

Counsel for opposite party      :    M/s. S. Namasivayam & others   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to deposit the amount of R.1,44,307/- with interest  and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as cost of the complaint. 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he is a Policy holder in Personal Pension Plan Policy No.00033426 dated 26.2.2002 with the opposite party w.e.f. 26.2.2002.   He has joined in the scheme during the year 2002 with an initial investment of Rs.10,084/- as first premium to the policy and had agreed to pay the amount at the same rate every year.    The policy is matured for vesting on 26.3.3012.   Further the complainant submit that he got the policy matured for vesting on 26.3.2012, he came to know from the officials of the opposite party that the matured payment would not be made available to the complainant, even if he did not want to continue in the scheme for the purpose of getting pension from the opposite party.    This amounts to “unfair trade practice / restrictive trade practice as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.    The complainant requested the opposite party to credit the amount of Rs.1,44,307/- to his account, which has been matured for payment and the opposite party cannot illegally hold this amount for investing in their annuity scheme for paying pension in future to the complainant when the latter is not at all interested in continuing the scheme.   Accordingly the complainant issued a legal notice dated 9.4.2012 to the opposite party and there was no reply from the opposite party.   As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service which caused mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

The opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of all the remaining allegations.  The opposite party submit that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed.    The policy was issued on the basis of a duly signed proposal form submitted by the complainant for HDFC Life Personal Pension Plan Policy and issued to him with a policy document No.00033426, dated 26 February 2002 which clearly reflects the installment premium, the term and frequency of premium.  Further the opposite party state that the policy is an evidence of a contract of the life assurance between HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company limited and the policy holder.    The salient feature of the Personal Pension Plan Policy is that the policy will attain a notional cash value if the Life assured survives up to the vesting date.  The notional cash value consists of the basic sum assured plus any attaching bonuses declared from time to time by the company during the period prior to vesting.   Subject to the prevailing legislation and regulations, part of this can be taken as a lump sum and the rest converted to an annuity.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

     Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,44,307/-

      with interest at the rate of 18% per annum  towards Personal

      Pension Plan Policy with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

      mental agony  and cost  as prayed for ?.

 

5.  On Point :-

       

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  Admittedly the complainant is a policy holder and the opposite party is the insurance company.   Admittedly the complainant availed the Personal Pension Plan Policy No.00033426, dated 26.2.2002 and it was matured on 26.3.2012.   The complainant is a regular payee and annual premium is of Rs.10,084/-.   The maturity value of the Personal Pension Plan Policy amount is Rs.1,44,307/-.  Immediately after the maturity of the said policy, the complainant made a request to pay the matured value of the policy in his account.   But the opposite party instead of paying the maturity value directed the complainant to invest the amount in annuity scheme against the conditions stipulated in the Personal Pension Plan Policy.  Now the opposite party says that there is a restriction clause in disbursement of maturity value and the complainant cannot withdraw the amount.     The learned counsel for complainant further contended that the above said restriction amounts to unfair trade practice and squarely coming under the “restrictive trade practice” which caused great mental agony.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,44,307/- towards the maturity value of the policy with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of maturity to till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice / restrictive trade practice by the opposite party.      

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the Personal Pension Plan Policy availed by the complainant was duly matured  and the maturity value is of Rs.1,44,307/-.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the policy was issued after proposal form which stipulates Evidence of contract of Life assurance between HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and the policy holder.  The salient features of the Personal Pension Plan Policy is that when the policy will attain a notional cash value and if the Life assured survives up to the vesting date, the notional cash value will be disbursed subject to the prevailing legislation and regulations on the part of the opposite party.   Hence immediately after maturity the opposite party sent policy document and proposal form for annuity investment.   Since the complainant has not submitted the duly signed proposal form the amount was not disbursed.   But on a careful perusal of the policy there is no such mandatory stipulation for investment of the maturity amount in annuity plan; proves the unfair trade practice exercised by the opposite party.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the compensation claimed towards mental agony is imaginary and exorbitant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,44,307/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e 26.3.2012 to till the date of payment  with compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the point is answered accordingly.   

In the result, the complaint is  allowed in part.    The opposite party is  directed to pay the maturity value of the policy amounts to Rs.1,44,307/- (Rupees One lakh forty four thousand three hundred and seven only) along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 26.3.2012  to till the date of payment  and also compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The above  amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  8^th   day  of  June 2017.   

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-  30.3.2002     - Copy of Policy schedule and the nomination  schedule.

 

Ex.A2- 9.4.2002     -  Copy of acceptance of proposal by other party with

                                 first premium receipt.

 

Ex.A3- 23.3.2009  -   Copy of Renewal premium receipt.

 

Ex.A4- Sep. 2009  -   Copy of letter from the other party declaring the bonus

                                 Under the Personal Pension Plan Policy.

 

Ex.A5- 20.1.2012  -   Copy of letter from the other party declaring the maturity

                                Date and the amount payable under the Personal Pension

                                Plan Policy.

 

Ex.A6- 30.3.3012  - Copy of letter from the complainant requesting the maturity

                               Proceeds under the Personal Pension Plan Policly.

 

Ex.A7- 9.4.2012    -  Copy of lawyer notice from M/s. K.M. Vijayan Associates.

 

Ex.A8-         -       -  Copy of Ack. card.

 

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   

Ex.B1-  3.8.2011   - Copy of letter of opposite party’s bank authority.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.