Punjab

Moga

CC/12/144

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.R.S.Aulakh

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

CC No. 144 of 2012

Date of Institution: 01.10.2012

Date of Decision: 14.09.2016

 

Sukwinder Singh aged 49 years son of Dial Singh son of Sahab Singh, resident of village: Kadar Wala, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga.

 

                                                                                          Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor 990, Opposite State Bank of Patiala, GT Road, Moga through its Branch Manager.

 

2.  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay, Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400021, through its Managing Director/ Concerned Officer.

 

Opposite Parties

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Quorum     Sh. Satwinder Pal Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Vishal Jain, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

1.       Earlier the complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum vide complain no.144 of 2012, which was decided on 30.01.2013, vide which the present complaint was dismissed. Against the said order complainant has filed an appeal before Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, bearing First Appeal no.300 of 2013, which was decided on 20.05.2016, vide which, the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh set aside the order of District Forum Moga dated 30.01.2013 by accepting the appeal of complainant/appellant and the case has been remanded back to this Forum with a direction to decide the case on its merits in accordance with law, if need be, the District Forum can order for the recovery of the documents from the opposite parties, which are deemed to be relevant for settlement of this controversy and parties through their counsel has been directed to appear before this Forum.

2.                 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 2.3.2012 the father of the complainant namely Dial Singh son of Sahab Singh had purchase the insurance policy from OPs and for this purchase, the agent of OPs-HDFC Standard Life had received all the relevant papers and also obtained the signatures of Dial Singh on the proposal form on the same day. Sh.Dial Singh father of the complainant had deposited Rs.50000/- as first premium on 5.3.2012 vide receipt no.ABJ18909 with OP1. The agent of opposite parties assured that the policy will be commenced positively and communicated within a period of 15 days. That on 27.3.2012 i.e. after 22 days from the date of deposit of first premium, the said Dial Singh suddenly expired. The OPs has accepted the proposal form of Dial Singh and issued the policy bearing no.14994328 vide letter dated 29.3.2012 in which it is mentioned that the policy has been commenced on 28.3.2012. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged the claim with OPs and also furnished all the requisite documents with them, but the OPs rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the policy has been commenced after one day of death of Dial Singh. The complainant visited the office of opposite parties many a times and requested them to release the claim amount, but to no effect. The opposite party has rejected the claim illegally, unjustly and by ignoring the regulations of IRDA. Hence this complaint.

3.                Opposite party nos. 1 & 2 filed written reply by taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and has been filed without any cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. That the contents of the present complaint are mis-conceived, misleading and afterthought and the present complaint is filed on mere conjectures and surmises; that the contents thereof are vexatious and malafide. That the present complaint does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In fact, Dial Singh father of the complainant had submitted the proposal/ application dated 02.03.2012 to the answering OPs for the purchase of HDFC SL Pro Growth Super II Plan having annual premium to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with term of policy as 10 years. As per the IRDA guidelines, it is mandatory for the insurance companies to collect the income proof of the person to be insured, so as to know whether he has the capacity and capability to pay the annual premium or not. Since in the present case, the deceased Dial Singh did not submit his income proof with the OPs at the time of submitting the proposal form, thereafter, vide letter dated 10.03.2012, the deceased was requested to submit the copies of his income proof and extracts of three assessment years. He was further requested to submit the said documents at the earliest as risk under the aforesaid proposal was not covered till the issuance of the policy. Dial Singh deceased had sent the income proof only on 26.3.3012 at Branch Office of OPs at Moga. Thereafter, as per procedure, said documents of income proof were sent to Chennai for issuance of policy and consequently the policy was issued on 29.3.2012 and the same was commenced on 28.3.2012. Since Dial Singh died on 27.3.2012, before the issuance of the policy, therefore, there was no policy in existence at the time of death of Dail Singh which means that there was no privity of contract and binding contract between the answering OPs and Dial Singh. So, the complainant is not eligible for the death claim of his father Dial Singh. All other details and rulings have been mentioned in paras no. 11 to 18 of preliminary objections by the OPs in support of their contentions.

On merits, the OPs taken up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied being incorrect. It is therefore prayed that the present complaint being false and frivolous deserves dismissal.

4.                In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1 and documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A17 and closed his  evidence.

5.               In rebuttal, OPs tendered in evidence the affidavit of Sh.Harsimran Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal) Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

7.                Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that father of complainant purchased an insurance policy of OPs and deposited Rs.50,000/-as first premium with OP-1 on 5.03.2012 against receipt no.ABJ18909 and agent of OPs assured him that it would commence within fifteen days. It is further submitted that father of complainant died on 27.03.2012 just after 22 days of payment of premium of policy. OPs accepted the proposal of his father and issued Insurance Policy commencing from 28.03.2012. Complainant lodged claim and also submitted all relevant documents to OPs, but OPs repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that Insurance Policy in question was issued after the date of death of his father. This repudiation of claim of complainant by OPs is illegal, unlawful and is against the rules of Insurance. Normally proposal of an insured is accepted within 7 days, but in present case, there is an abnormal delay of about 23 days, which is caused by staff/officials of OPs in accepting and communicating the policy  and therefore, OPs are liable for the delay on the part of their staff members and they should be directed to release the claimed amount to complainant.  Complainant made many requests to OPs to release the insurance amount, but all in vain. The action of OPs in repudiating the claim of complainant is quite wrong and it amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Prayer for accepting the complaint is made. Ld counsel for complainant has stressed on documents Ex A-1 to 17.

8.                To controvert the allegations of ld. counsel for complainant, ld. counsel for OPs asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vague and no cause of action arises against OPs. Complainant has concocted a false story and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. it is further averred that father of complainant applied for purchase of insurance policy through proposal form dated 2.03.2012 and term of policy was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs.50,000/-. It is further averred that as per instructions of IRDA, Income proof is mandatory for issuance of policy, but father of complainant did not submit his income proof alongwith proposal form and therefore vide letter dated 10.03.2012, he was asked to submit the same. Father of complainant submitted his income proof on 26.03.2012 at the branch office of OPs at Moga and as thereafter, as per procedure, the said documents of income proof were sent to Chennai for issuance of Insurance Policy and consequently, a policy bearing no.14994328 dated 29.03.2012 was issued with date of commencement of same on 28.03.2012 and as father of complainant died on 27.03.2012 and policy commenced on 28.03.2012 i.e. after the death  of said Dial Singh, meaning thereby that no policy existed on 27.03.2012 and therefore, OPs are not liable to make payment of any claim on account of policy which commenced after the death of insured. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are totally refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

9.                We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have duly gone through the record available on the file.

10.              Ld. Counsel for OP argued that Dial Singh, father of complainant applied for purchase of Insurance Policy vide proposal form dated 05.03.2012. Alongwith Proposal form, however he did not submit his income proof, as such, vide letter dated 10.03.2012, he was asked to submit the required documents i.e. mandi receipts and land extract for the last three assessment years and said Dial Singh submitted these documents only on 26.03.2012 to the Branch Office of Ops at Moga. Copy of letter dated 10.03.2012 Ex. R-3 and document submitted by Dial Singh are Ex. R-5. Immediately after receiving these documents, the OPs sent these documents to their Head Office for further proceedings and immediately Ops, issued Insurance Policy in the name of Dial Singh on 29.03.2012 with date of commencement as 28.03.2012, but as said Dial Singh died on 27.03.2012 i.e. prior to issuance of Insurance Policy, therefore, there was no binding contract of Insurance in force on 27.03.2012 at the time of death of Dial Singh. So, OPs are not liable to pay insurance claim for the death of Dial Singh. He has put reliance on citation 1984 AIR (SC) 1014 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Raja Vasideddy, wherein our Hon’ble Apex Court held that Contract Act 1872, Section 7 and 8-Acceptance of insurance proposal – Silence not devoting consent – Binding Contract not arising until the person to whom offer is made signified acceptance – Acceptance is complete only when communicated to offeror – Mere receipt and retention of premium is not acceptance. He further put reliance on citation 2012 (1) CLT 161 titled as LIC Vs Jamuna & Ors, wherein our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g), 14 (1) (d) and 21 (b) – Insurance Claim – Non settlement of claim – Contract of insurance – Non concluded contract – Petitoners had taken certain objections to the proposal and sent communication to the intending insured requiring him to complete certain requirements – Before complying with requirements, the intending insured died – No policy has been issued – till the issuance of policy no binding contract had come into force between the parties – Merely because the Petitioners retained the sum sent with proposal form and some amount sent subsequently does not signify acceptance of the policy -  Petitioners had not accepted the offer made by the intending insured – Till the acceptance of the offer, no binding contract had come into existence – Orders passed by the Fora below allowing relief to the respondent held not sustainable and liable to be set aside and the complaint ordered to be dismissed.

11.              From the above discussion and in the light of case law produced by the opposite parties, we are of considered opinion that on 27.03.2012 at the time of death of Dial Singh, there was no binding contract of insurance in force, as Insurance Policy was issued by opposite parties on 29.03.2012 with commencement date of 28.03.2012,  so the complainant is not entitled for the claim for the death of his father from the opposite parties. We find no merit in the present complaint and therefore, the present complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, the opposite parties have received the premium of Rs.50,000/-from Dial Singh, father of complainant and when there is no enforceable contract concluded between the parties, then  in that case, the opposite parties are not entitled to retain the amount of Rs.50,000/-received by them from Dial Singh as premium for insurance. They cannot be allowed to get undue benefit. Hence, in these circumstances.  Opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- to complainant received by them from Dial Singh alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receiving the same till final realization. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.09.2016       

 

                                      (Bhupinder Kaur)                             (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                                           President