Date of filing : 2.8.2017

Judgment : Dt.21.1.2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

            This Consumer Complainant is filed by the Complainant namely Sri Rabindranath Das under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against opposite parties namely (1) HDFC Standard Life Insurance, (2) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. (OP No.1 & 2 having their offices in Mumbai) and (3) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. having office at Gariahat, Kolkata, alleging unfair trade practice on their part.

            Complainant’s case in brief is that being convinced by the authorized agent of the opposite party No.3, Complainant purchased HDFC SL CLASSIC ASSURE Insurance Plan being Policy No.16026092 dated 13.4.2013. Premium amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the Complainant. Complainant was made to understand by the authorisesd agent of OP No.3 at the time of taking policy that it was one-time payment policy and Company will refund the premium with interest after three years. But after payment of premium when the policy certificate and documents thereto was received, Complainant was shocked to see that the policy was for 10 years and the premium was to be paid on yearly basis for 07 years continuously. Authorised agent of the OP No.3 had suppressed the fact at the time of taking of policy. So, Complainant requested the OP No.3 repeatedly to cancel the said policy and to refund the premium amount but all in vain. Ultimately, Complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate on 15.09.2015 to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount but nothing was done by the OP and thus present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for direct ing the opposite parties to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Complainant has annexed documents i.e. copy of notice sent through his Ld. Advocate and copy of policy.

            Opposite parties have contested the case by filing the written version denying the material allegation made in the complaint petition contending inter alia that after having understood the terms and conditions of policies, Complainant purchased the Policy where total sum assured is Rs.1,13,770/-. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 13^th April, 2013 as first premium and second premium on 13^th April, 2014. In the policy bond it is clearly written that “cancellation in the free look period”. Complainant never approached to the opposite parties within 30 days for cancellation of the policy where the policy was issued on 16^th April, 2013. Opposite parties have thus prayed for dismissal of the case.

            During the course of evidence, both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-chiefs, questionnaires and reply thereto.

            Both sides advanced their respective arguments. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant h as referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, being First Appeal No.A/117/2015. Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties, has also cited the case laws reported in 1(2016) CPJ 190(NC) and in III(2015)CPJ 56 (NC).

            So, following points are to be determined :-

            1) Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

            2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed?

            Decision with reasons

            Point No.1 & 2

            Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.

            Complainant has claimed that he had purchased the policy in question with a belief that it was single premium payment policy and would mature after 3 years. According to him the authorized agent of OP No.3 convinced him to take the policy and he was made to understand by the said agent that it was one time premium payment policy. It is his further case that the proposal form for issuance of policy was also filled up by the said agent.

            Said policy certificate with the form is filed by the Complainant, wherefrom it appears that proposal form was signed by the Complainant as policy holder and his wife signed as life to be insured, on 12.04.2013. But, it is pertinent to point out the writings in the proposal form regarding guidelines etc. is so small that one may need magnifying glass to read the same. This proposal form was filled up by the authorized agent of the opposite parties, has not been denied and disputed by the opposite parties. However, moot question to be considered is when actually policy was received by the Complainant? Even though opposite parties have stated in their written version that policy papers of the said policy being No.16026092 was dispatched by the Speed Post on 22^nd April, 2013 to the address of the Complainant and same was received by the Complainant but have not stated the date of receiving the policy papers by the Complainant. Neither any postal document in this regard is filed by the opposite parties. Neither Complainant has stated the exact date of receiving the policy paper. However, he has claimed that on receipt of policy paper, he was shocked to see that the policy was for 10 years and thus he approached for cancellation of Policy. It is not clear whether he approached in the free look period or within 30 days from the date of receipt of policy since no document is filed by the Complainant to substantiate his claim that on receiving the policy papers and after going through the papers, he approached opposite party No.3 for cancellation. But, according to OPs, Complainant paid second premium on 13th April, 2014. They have not filed any document to show that second premium was paid by the Complainant. Opposite parties sought to suggest that as the Complainant also paid second premium, he was well aware that the policy was for 10 years and premium was to be paid yearly for seven years.

            If second premium was paid by the Complainant, opposite parties must have sent notice for payment of second premium but neither any such notice nor any other document is filed that second premium was also paid by the Complainant. In such a situation, it safely leads to inference that Complainant did approach  opposite party No.3 for cancellation of policy for which no such further notice was sent and no such second premium was paid by the Complainant. In these views of the matter, there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and thus Complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost as he has been compelled to file this case. But, in the given facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any justification to award any compensation.

            It will not be out of place to mention here that the case law cited by the Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties reported in III(2015) CPJ 56(NC), will not be applicable in the given fats and situation of this case. In that case, Complainant had admitted to have received the policy in time but claimed he could not read it as was engaged in his business purpose. Further, in that case after one year, Complainant was also sent the second (Yearly) premium notice, which is not the situation in this case as already highlighted above.

            In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd., (MANJU SC/0390/20127) it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the Courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services of goods. It was further held that the very purpose of a beneficent legislation, in the form of Consumer Protection Act, is to overcome this disadvantage. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of consumer’s claim”.

            So, in view of the legal proposition in the above mentioned case law, the argument by the OPs that there has been delay, cannot be a ground to reject the case of Complainant.

            These points are thus answered accordingly.

            Hence

                                     ordered

            CC/449/2017 is allowed on contest. Opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant within two months from the date of this order. They are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost within the aforesaid period of two months in default entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of  10% p.a. from this date to till realization.