Punjab

Sangrur

CC/115/2018

Surinderpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Smt. Juhi Kansal

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 115

Instituted on:   08.03.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     26.09.2018

 

Surinderpal aged about 40 years son of Sh. Ram Sarup, resident of Village Rajindrapuri (Ranchna) Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Lodha Excelus, 13^th Floor, Appollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahaluxmi, Mumbai 400 011 through its Managing Director.

2.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Delhi-Mayur Vihar Branch, 1^st Floor No.1/A, Mayur Palace, Star City Mall Mayur Vihar, Phase 1, Near Mayur Vihar Extension, Metro Station, New Delhi 110 091 through its General Manager.

3.     HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

4.     S.B. Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. D2,  Sector 3, Noida Uttar Pradesh, License No.230, Contact details: 01204321335.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Smt. Juhi Kaushal, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTIES 1to3    :              Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate

FOR OP NO.4                     :      Exparte.                   

 

Quorum

         

                   Inderjit Kaur, Presiding Member

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Shri Surinderpal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) in which the complainant has submitted that he had bought a policy bearing number 163970732 of 2009 of LIC of India for the sum of Rs.50,000/- and was paying the sum of Rs.2027/- as monthly premium for the insurance policy.   Further case of the complainant is that the Ops allured the complainant to take another policy by paying Rs.50,000/- in cash as premium of the plan, as such the complainant handed over a cheque of Rs.50,000/- to the Ops as premium of the policy and they also got signatures of the complainant, as such the complainant received policy bearing number 18429600 on 4^th May 2016 in the name of the complainant himself.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter he received another call to purchase the policies of the Ops, as such the father of the complainant handed over two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each of HDFC Bank in favour of the OPs  on the assurance that the complainant will get huge benefits under these policies and the complainant received two more policies bearing number 18476895 and 37072927 of 31.5.2016 and 28.6.2016, respectively. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have duped the complainant by disclosing wrong facts about the plans. Further case of the complainant is that though the Ops have refunded the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant by depositing three different cheques dated 15.2.2018 in the account of the complainant, but the fact remains that the Ops did not pay the due interest.  Thus, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay him Rs.30,000/- as an interest till date of the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- received by the Ops as premium while issuance of above mentioned three policies and appropriate interest till its realization and also claimed compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

2.             In reply filed by the Ops number 1 to 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon’ble Forum. Further the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the complainant, that the complainant has no where mentioned that the settlement amount of compromise was accepted under protest or subject to legal remedies, that the complainant has already accepted the amount under full and final settlement without any protest, that the complaint is misconceived and had no merit and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs. Further the Ops have averred that it is a settled law that when the complainant has already accepted the settlement amount in full and final without any protest then he cannot claim any further amounts left out of that settlement later on.  On merits, it is admitted that the policy in question was issued to the complainant, but the other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 4 was proceeded against exparte.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 to  3 has produced Ex.OP-1to3/1 to Ex.OP1to3/6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased LIC insurance policy himself in the year 2009 as mentioned above with a sum assured of Rs.50,000/- and annual premium of Rs.2027/-.  The complainant further purchased three number policies from the OPs bearing policy numbers 18429600, 18532124 and 18476895 and has himself admitted in his reply that sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as premium collected from the complainant was returned to him by the Ops.  Now, the bone of contention between the complainant and the Ops is that the complainant wants the interest to be paid on the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- retained by the Ops.   As per the complainant himself, he has already been paid Rs.1,50,000/- by the Ops. In support of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Ghaziabad Development Authority versus Union of India and another S.C.2003 AIR 2000. But, the ratio of the above case is not applicable in this case.  In this case, the fault has been found with the complainant creating the circumstances to refund the amount paid by him to the Ops. 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

Pronounced.

 

                September 26, 2018.

                                                       

                                               

                                                             (Inderjit Kaur)

                                                           Presiding Member

                                                       

 

 

                                                           (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                 Member