DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.379 of 2015
Date of institution: 03.08.2015 Date of decision : 04.10.2016
Surjan Singh Chatha aged 68 years son of Late Mohan Singh Chatha, resident of House No.201, Green Park Colony, Lohgarh, MC Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodhan Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011 through its Managing Director/President/Director.
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., Patiala Road Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 to 14
of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Balwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri H.S. Bhatia, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Surjan Singh Chatha son of Late Mohan Singh Chatha, resident of House No.201, Green Park Colony, Lohgarh, MC Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant has saving bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd., Zirakpur. On the inducement by representative of OP No.2, the complainant invested/purchased the policy floated by OP No.1 and got debited Rs.1,00,000/- as first premium from his account to OP No.1. However, when the complainant did not receive the original policy, he contacted OP No.2 and on the advice of OP No.2 the complainant contacted OP No.1 who first informed vide letter dated 26.07.2013 that the policy has been dispatched to the complainant through Speed post and vide another letter dated 31.07.2013 it was informed that the policy had been sent through Blue Dart courier. Inspite of request of the complainant, OP No.2 transferred the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the account of complainant to OP No.1. Complainant also came to know that as per law insurance of the complainant cannot be done being the complainant of 68 years of age. The complainant had visited the office of OP No.2 many times but the matter has been lingered on every time on one pretext or the other. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund him Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realisation; to pay him Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment; Rs.20,000/- as cost of travelling and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OPs. OP No.1 in its written statement had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is barred by limitation as it has been filed on 30.07.2015 whereas the amount towards the policy had been deposited by the complainant on 30.08.2008 and the second premium had been deposited on 22.09.2009. If the complainant had not received the policy, he would not have deposited the second premium and this shows that the present dispute is being raised for the purpose of creating a dispute so as to claim refund of the premium amount. The complainant continued to enjoy the benefits of the policy till its termination. The complainant is not a consumer as the policy is a unit linked policy. On merits, it is pleaded that prior to 2013 the complainant has never approached the OP No.1 with any complaint of non receipt of the policy. The OP No.1 is ready to provide the duplicate copy of the policy to the complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.2 in its separate written statement had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of the parties and OP No.1 has branch office at Chandigarh who has not been made a party. OP No.2 has separate entity. The complaint is barred by limitation as letter of dispatch of the duplicate insurance policy has been sent on 26.07.2013. On merits, it has denied that complainant was induced by its representative to purchase the policy. Complainant never contacted OP No.2 that he has not received the policy. The complainant had never requested OP No.2 not to credit the amount from his account. OP No.2 has also sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of original statement of accounts Ex.C-1; letters dated 18.07.2013, 26.07.2013 and 31.07.2013 Ex.C-2 to C-4. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amit Khanna, is Legal Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Prashant Debnath, its Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/2.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite receipt of premium the OPs have not issued the policy to the complainant and when the complainant requested OPs for sending him the policy, the OPs firstly informed him vide letter dated 26.07.2013 that the policy has been dispatched to him through Speed post and then vide another letter dated 31.07.2013 it was informed that the policy had been sent through Blue Dart courier. This shows that the OPs have not sent the policy to the complainant. Even OP No.2 transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the account of complainant to OP No.1 without his consent. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs at the very outset have argued that the complainant has purchased the unit linked policy and complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. III (2013) CPJ 203 (NC) wherein it has been held that “The Forum also observed that the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the view of the Consumer Protection Act.”
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral submission. We are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove the fact that the policy purchased by him was not a unit linked policy. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), we find that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Moreover the Hon’ble National Commission, in case titled as LIC Vs Siba Prasad Dash (Dr.) & ors. (2008) CPJ 156 (NC) wherein it has been held that Consumer Fora cannot direct the refund of the policy as the risk stood covered for the period for which the premium had been paid.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find it appropriate to adjudicate the present complaint on merits. However, the complainant is granted the liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law/tribunal/authority. The present complaint is hereby dismissed. In case the complainant requires any documents the same be returned, under receipt and a copy of the same be retained. Parties to bear the cost.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 27.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 04.10.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
