DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Pardeep Singh s/o S. Parmatma Singh, resident of Vill. Bondli, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

              ---Complainant

Vs

1.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Local Branch Office: SCO No. 119-120, Ist & 2^nd Floor, Sector 43, Chandigarh – 160043.

2.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office: Ramon House, H T Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA               MEMBER

           SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU        MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Jasbeer Singh Sahota, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Nitin Thatai, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.          The Complainant had purchased Young Star Super II Life Insurance Policy from the Opposite Parties on 20.06.2011 by paying a premium of Rs.15,000/-. Policy No. 14452575 was allotted to the Complainant vide FPR dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure C-1). The Complainant has stated that at the time of offering the policy, besides promising rich returns the Agent of the Opposite Parties had also told him that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the policy terms, he would be paid back full premium amount on demand. He was also assured by the Opposite Parties that the original policy documents would be send to him within 90 days. However, except supplying a photocopy of the FPR, the Opposite Parties failed to send the original policy documents to the Complainant. The Complainant approached and requested the Opposite Parties to supply the required documents a number of times, but all in vain. The Complainant thus sent a legal notice dated 28.5.2012 by registered post through his counsel requesting them to pay Rs.15,000/- as premiums paid plus compensation. As the amount has not been paid, the Complainant has filed the instant case with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.15,000/-, besides paying compensation and costs of litigation. 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties in their joint reply have denied each and every allegation made by the Complainant in the preliminary objections itself. They have maintained that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has not come forward with correct facts. Opposite Parties have also maintained that the Complainant had submitted a proposal form dated 20.6.2011 for the purchase of HDFC SL Young Star Super-II Policy with an annual premium of Rs.15,000/- for a term of 10 years. The proposal was accepted and policy was issued to him bearing No. 14452575 dated 24.6.2011 and the same commenced on 23.6.2011 (proposal form & policy at Ex.R-2 & R-3). Before acceptance of the proposal, the contents of the proposal/ application were explained to the life assured in detail. The allegations of the Complainant about non-receipt of policy documents are absolutely wrong and false. The policy was received by the Complainant as is evident from the receipt but he chose to keep mum till one year and never lodged any complaint about non-receipt of the policy with the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in Appeal No. 202 of 2012 titled as Avtar Singh Dhillon Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, wherein it has been held that complaint by the policy holder regarding non-receipt of the policy after a lapse of more than 02 years is not justified. The Complainant has filed the instant complaint, when the policy has already lapsed, and the Complainant has taken all the benefits of the policy for the period he has paid the premium. Once the policy has lapsed due to non-payment of the premium for the subsequent years, the Complainant has no legal right to claim refund and damages. The policy documents were sent to the Complainant through speed post vide POD No. ED246144134N. The Opposite Parties have also relied on a number of other judgments of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to substantiate that the complaint is not maintainable as the policy had lapsed.    

          On merits, Opposite Parties have admitted the issuance of policy to the Complainant. Opposite Parties have denied that the Complainant was told that in case of surrender of policy, he would be refunded the full premium, on demand. The Complainant is an educated person and has filled up the proposal form himself. He is guilty of suppressing material facts and his allegations regarding non-receipt of policy are unjustified as the documents were sent to the Complainant through speed post vide POD No. ED246144134N. Hence, submitting that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

4.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties and have perused the record.

6.          The case of the Complainant has arisen as he has felt aggrieved that the policy opted for has not been provided to him by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have categorically stated that the policy has been sent to him through speed post POD NO.Ed246144134In on 25.06.2011. But postal receipt could not be provided by the Opposite Parties. It is thus not proved that the policy documents have actually reached the hands of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties could have obtained a certificate from the postal department to prove its assertion. The benefit of doubt is therefore definitely in favour of the Complainant who has prayed that as the policy document has not been received by him, he is entitled to get the policy cancelled. Agreeing with his contention, we allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid as premiums for the policy after deduction of standard statutory charges to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards costs of litigation. As the Complainant has also enjoyed the benefit of the policy for the period that it remained alive in the words of the Opposite Parties, we deem it appropriate not to award any further compensation for the same.      

7.          This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the payable amount from the date of this order, till it is paid, besides the cost of litigation. 

8.          Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18^th March, 2013.                                              

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER