Judgment : Dt.4.12.2017

Shri S. K. Verma, President.

            This is a complaint made by one Mrs. Neeti Singh, wife of Sri Om Prakash Singh, residing at 13-N, Ballygunge Place (East), P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019 against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 11^th fl., Lodha Excellus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400 011, OP No.1 and HDFC Bank Ltd., Ballygunge Branch, Branch Code No.516, having its office address at Navjivan, 1^st fl., 54/1A, Hazra Road, P.S.-Gariahat, Kolkata-700 019, praying for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- which OPs debited from the Savings Bank A/C No.051614000030786 with the OP No.2 stands in the name of the Complainant along with her son Rahul Singh as joint holder, for a direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is a customer of the OP No.2 holding a Savings Bank A/ jointly with her son Rahul Singh. The said Savings Bank A/C of the Complainant with the OP No.2 bears the number 05161000030786. Accordingly, he Complainant gradually accumulated substantial amount in the said Bank A/C upto the month of January, 2014. The Complainant used to deposit her savings from time to time in the Savings Bank A/C to meet her occasional requirements. During the end of December, 2013, to 1^st week of January, 2014, some of the employees of the OP No.2 representing themselves as the well wishers of the customers of the OP No.2 visited the residence of the Complainant. The said employees of the OP No.2 also told that the object of their visit was to encourage and advise the customers of the OP No.2 for better investment of their savings in the savings bank A/C so that the deposits can ensure and yield maximum benefit to the customers of the OP No.2. The Complainant states that in course of the visit of the said employees they induced the Complainant as well as her husband to open and invest their accumulated money in the aforesaid Savings Bank A/c in fixed deposit for a short term period and such fixed deposit amount would bring higher rate of interest than the rate of the savings bank. The husband of the Complainant after having discussed refused to concede to the proposal of the visitors who were deputed by the OP No.1 with OP No.2. The sole intention behind the visit of the said employees of the OPs was to develop and spread the business of the OP No1 with the assistance of the OP No.2 with whom the saving bank A/c are being opened and operated. Complainant stated that after a gap of 3-4 days again the said employees of OPs came to the residence of the Complainant along with two new faces. The visitors again requested the husband of the Complainant showing some leaflets and papers an insisted the husband of the Complainant to open a fixed deposit A/C with the OP No.1 at least for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. But the husband of the Complainant did not agree on the plea that the said amount would be spent for the higher education of her sons. But, the bank employees were repeatedly requested the husband of the Complainant to make the profitable investment of the OP No.1 through the OP NO.2 with whom the money is lying in the savings bank A/C. The husband of the Complainant after much persuation reluctantly agreed to make a short term deposit in fixed deposit A/c for a period of one year. The Complainant states that when the employees of the OPs could successfully convince the husband of the Complainant they immediately produced a bunch of printed forms and papers and asked the husband of the Complainant to get those printed forms and papers signed by the Complainant so that the deposit account in the name of the Complainant could be opened with the OP No.1. The husband of the Complainant at that time was in a dilemma and heisted to sign all the papers instantly without going through the same minutely. But the employees of the OPs represented that the Complainant being the customer of the OP No.2 is an asset to the business of the OPs and there was no scope for any misrepresentation from the OPs in any way. Accordingly, they requested the husband of the Complainant to get those forms signed in good faith and without any hesitation. The Complainant and her husband were induced to believe that the OPs are running business throughout the country and they have good will in the banking sector and convinced her husband to fill up the form in respect of the name and address only of the Complainant and the rest portion of the form would be filled up by them and her husband being convinced and in good faith got all the papers and forms signed by the Complainant at that time.  Complainant stated that the representatives of the OPs took all the signed forms and papers and left the residence of the Complainant giving assurance to send the fixed deposit certificate to the Complainant at her residential address. But the facts remain that the husband of the Complainant again reminded the representatives of the OPs only to invest their money to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- only in short term fixed deposit scheme and not in any other purpose. Complainants stated that after some days of obtaining the signatures of the Complainant, the Complainant found that the OP No.1 had issued two certificates bearing Nos.16571102 and 16571061 both dt.14.1.2014 in the name of the Complainant under their scheme namely HDFC Life Pension Super Plus for a period of 10 years for Rs.1,00,000/- each. Complainant after receiving the said two certificates was completely surprised and then and there the husband of the Complainant went to the office of the OP No.2 at Hazra Road and met the branch manager of the OP No.2 who sent the husband of the Complainant to another officer of the OP No.2 to look into the matter. The husband of the Complainant strongly pleaded the grievances that the Complainant never intended to open any account in long term pension scheme of the OP No.1 except the investment in short term fixed Deposit for one year. Complainant states that the OPs No.1 & 2 collusively debited Rs.2,00,000/- from the savings bank A/C of the Complainant as aforesaid and thereby issued two certificates bearing No.16571102 and 16571061 in HDFC Life Pension Super Plan Scheme for a period of 10 years making the Complainant liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as yearly premium for each of the said two certificates under HDFC Life Pension Super Plus Scheme which the Complainant never expected and had intended to open F. D. with the OP No.1. to solve the problem which could not be solved. So, Complainant approached this Forum and filed this case.

            OP No. 2 filed written version and denied the material allegations of the complaint. OP No.2 has stated that the complaint is barred by limitation. Further, OP No.2 has stated that there is provision for cancellation of the insurance policy in the free look period which was not exercised by the Complainant. Also stated by the OP No.2 that the complaint made is a distorted representation of the fact as well as false and fabricated story about her transactions done with the HDFC Life. Further OP No.2 has stated that Complainant and her husband signed on the proposal form which was later on accepted. Thereafter the policy certificate was issued to the Complainant as per IRDA rules now the policy cannot be cancelled and the prayer of the Complainant is not bona fide. So, this complaint be dismissed summarily.

            Other OPs have also filed written version and has denied the allegations of the complaint. They have stated that there is nothing reasons on behalf of the OPs. Complainant voluntarily purchased the policies and did not make effort to cancel the policy during the free look period and so he is not entitled for the relief in terms of the prayers made by him in the complaint petition.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OP No.1 filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply.  OP No.2 filed evidence. Complainant filed questionnaire against the evidence of OP No.2. Thereafter OP No.2 filed reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for refund of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

            In this regard, Complainant has filed original policy documents which reveal that for one policy document only Complainant paid only Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the first installment and for other two installments were taken by the OP. So, the amount came to Rs.3,00,000/-.

            Now the question arises as to whether the filing up of the proposal form was the voluntary act of the Complainant or it was done due to the misrepresentation made by the employees of the OPs. Actually, whether the misrepresentation was made or not cannot be matter of consumer Forum. But, we only have jurisdiction to adjudicate as to whether there was any type of unfair practice on the part of the employees of OPs who visited to convince the Complainant for purchasing the policy.

            It is clear that both the policy documents are in the name of the lady Neeti Singh and since Complainant has alleged that she thought of investing some money for fixed deposit, the question of purchasing insurance policy does not appear to have arisen. Accordingly, consent of the husband appear to have been taken. The representatives of the OPs had obligation to be clear while convincing the purchaser of the policy documents. Further, it appears that in case of one policy bearing No.16571102, 2^nd premium was not paid but deducted from ECS. Such deduction makes clear that the act of the Complainant was not voluntary, otherwise she would have paid premium in the other policy also. It is because she received both the policy documents in the month of January, 2014 and after receiving that she remain surprised and confused as to how the 2^nd policy document was issued in her name in place of fixed deposit. Accordingly, we think it proper that the amount deducted from the account of the policy holder be refunded to her as because it does not appear to be voluntary act of the Complainant and neither she nor her husband consented for that.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, 1,50,000/- another Rs.1,00,000/-. On perusal of the record and materials placed before us, it appears that the compensation is not warranted because the policy document was sent to the Complainant sometime in February and she did not chose to come to this Forum immediately and filed this case on 24.3.2017. Now due to that she did not pay premium, but she should have come to this Forum as early as possible. Accordingly, we do not find ground for allowing any compensation or litigation cost. However, she is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction, by the OPs from her account of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Hence,

ordered

              CC/174/2017 and the same is allowed on contest in part. OPs are directed to refund the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the account of Complainant within two months of this order.