Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/99/2015

Sohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Sharma

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   99 of 27.08.2015 

Date of Decision              :   29.01.2016      

Sohan Singh S/o Sawaran Singh R/o Village Karimpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, age 64 years.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Branch Nawanshahr Road Banga, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar through its Manager.
2. H.D.F.C. Bank Limited, Branch Nawanshahr Road Banga, District SBS Nagar through its Manager.

…Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Amit Sharma, Advocate.

For OP No.1                           :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP No.2                            :         Sh.S.K. Dewan, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) by alleging that in July 2011, he went to OP No.2 bank for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in FD, but employees of OPs called upon him to deposit the said amount in FD linked with his saving account. Even, they assured complainant that amount would be shown in the statement of his saving account.  On their assurance, complainant handed over Rs.1,00,000/- to them by instructing them to deposit the same in FD in his name. Then, employees of Ops disclosed that after deduction of charges, the said amount invested in FDR for fixed period of four years, which will entail interest @9.5% per annum.  In July 2015 that is after expiry of period of four years, complainant visited Op No.2 for enquiring about the FDs and there he got knowledge that instead of investing the amount in FDRs, the same has been invested with OP No.1 in policy bearing No.14518038.  Thereafter, complainant asked manager of OP to cancel the policy and return back the amount, but he did not pay heed to these requests.  Ops in connivance with each other and without consent of complainant illegally invested the amount in policy of Op No.1 despite the fact that he never asked for such investment.  So, it is claimed that complainant had been cheated and OPs have breached the trust of complainant.  Cause of action accrued to complainant in July 2015, when maturity of FDRs sought to be got issued by complainant, was to take place.  By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, directions sought to OPs to refund Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest.  Compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- also claimed.   

2.       In written statement filed by OP No. 1, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; a false story has been concocted in the complaint; complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 2 (c) of the Act; complaint has been filed with ulterior motive for harassing and humiliating OP-1 because the policy was duly issued after acceptance of the proposal form submitted by complainant and moreover most important document dated 27.07.2011 was duly singed by complainant.  Policy not got cancelled within 30 days free look period.  Act and conduct of complainant in not returning and surrendering the policy signifies his acceptance of terms and conditions of the policy.   The policy has already lapsed in 2012 and complainant has already got benefit of policy and as such he has no right to claim damages.  Life assured paid initial premium of Rs.1 Lac on 27.07.2011.  It was clearly disclosed to complainant that term of policy will be 10 years and he will have to pay annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum for a period of 5 years.  The sum assured was disclosed as 4,94,187/-.  The policy documents were signed by complainant after the terms and conditions thereof explained to him in the language known to him.  The financial consultant Sh.Tek Chand submitted confidential report dated 27.07.2011 for declaring that all the statements contained in policy documents were true and correct to the belief and knowledge of policyholder.  The complaint is filed after delay of more than 4 years and as such as per Section 24-A of Act, the complaint merits dismissal, particularly when no application for condonation of delay filed.  Cause of action accrued to complainant in 2011, but complaint filed in 2015. As the policy has lapsed due to non-payment of premium, so complainant is not a consumer.   Virtually complainant has admitted the factum of payment and issuance and receipt of the policy.  The present complaint is nothing, but suit for declaration for declaring the policy as void, which is not permissible under the Act, because civil court alone can decide such complicated questions.  Deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice not proved because of the presentation of distorted and twisted picture.  Other averments of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       In separate written statement filed by Op No.2, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint in present form not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi; there is concealment of material facts; this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the question of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation, and complaint barred by limitation, being not filed within two years.  Moreover, it is claimed that bank has been sending quarterly statement qua account of complainant.  Cock and bull story alleged to be put forth for harassing the bank and dragging it in uncalled for litigation.  Complainant, an educated person himself opted for the insurance policy.  Bank is providing due services to its customer and present complaint alleged to be filed for tarnishing the image of bank.  Each and other averment of the complaint denied.   

4.       Counsel for complainant to prove his case tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A of complainant alongwith policy document Ex.C-1 and then closed the evidence.

5.       On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Amit Khanna, Ex.OP1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7 and then closed the evidence.  Counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A of Sh.Mohit Sarngal, Assistant Manager and thereafter closed the evidence.

6.       Written arguments not submitted by any of counsel for the parties, but oral arguments of the counsel for the parties were heard and records gone through minutely.

7.       It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that complaint is barred by limitation and as such the same liable to be dismissed in view of Section 24 – A of the Act. It is the claim of complainant that infact the amount was invested by him for FD for 4 years and that is why he after the expiry of four years approached OPs in July 2015 for finding as if the amount has not been invested in FD but in the insurance plan.  So virtually complainant through his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A claims to have got knowledge of mis sale of policy in July 2015.  Being so the complaint is within two years from the date of knowledge of alleged mis sale.  So complaint cannot be held to be barred by limitation. 

8.       Perusal of documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP1/7 reveals that on submission of proposal form by complainant, the classic pension plan was sold to him as per insurance agreement.  Letter Ex.OP1/3 dated 30.07.2011 shows as if complainant was informed of acceptance of his proposal qua the insurance policy and he was given option of getting the policy cancelled or modified within 30 days free look period.  That option was not exercised by complainant within 30 days and as such certainly complainant is bound by terms of insurance contract.  Most important document Ex.OP1/5 as well as proposal form Ex.OP1/2 were submitted by complainant under his signatures and as such complainant cannot wriggle out from the contract of insurance, particularly when the allegations of the fraud not born out from material produced on record.  Rather complainant himself has produced the policy document consisting of terms of proposal form Ex.C-1 on the record.  After going through Ex.C-1, letter dated 30.07.2011 annexed on the top of Ex.C-1, it is obvious that complainant got knowledge of the scheme in which his amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was invested.  However, the sum assured is Rs.4,97,187/- alone and the expiry period mentioned as 27.07.2021. Final premium due date is mentioned as 27.07.2015 in Ex.C-1 itself.  Premium is payable annually as per Ex.C-1, but complainant does not claim to have paid the subsequent premiums after July 2011 and as such complainant at the most entitled to the surrender value as per IRDA guidelines. As after close of one year of the policy, the guaranteed value has to be shown and as such due to non-payment of further premium alone, complainant not debarred from getting the surrender value as per IRDA Regulations.  That surrender value is to accrue in July 2016.  Being so the complaint filed prior to the above said period can be said to be premature, but even then OP-1, the insurer being bound by IRDA Regulations, bound to pay the surrender value as per these regulations. 

9.       In case of Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan V. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994 (1) CPR 396, it has been held that if fraud is alleged, then it is desirable that the complainant should be directed to approach Civil Court because investigation about fraud required to be done by that Court.  In view of the deep investigation being required qua allegations of fraud, the complainant, if advised may approach the Civil Courts.

10.     Policy in question was duly licensed by IRDA, so IRDA Regulations of 2013 to come to the rescue of complainant, because payment after due deduction has not been made as per these regulations.  Deficiency in service is to this extent alone.  

11.     In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by complainant stands disposed of in terms that payment will be made by OP-1 to complainant as per IRDA guidelines.           

12.     Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 29.01.2016                                                         

 

 

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G. K. Dhir)

Member                                                               President