BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 56 of 2017
Date of Institution : 8.3.2017
Date of Decision : 25.1.2018.
Balwinder Singh son of Shri Tara Singh, resident of Ward No.13, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Managing Director, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi Mumbai- 400011.
2. Regional Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, office Ground 1st and 2nd Floor, SCO No.149-150-151, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.
3. Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, office Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa. (Haryana).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. K.S. Mehra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased three insurance policies from opposite parties and deposited the amounts of Rs.71,400/- in policy No.18213619, Rs.28,500/- in policy No.18404640 and deposited Rs.70,000/- in policy no.18451723. Out of the above said amounts, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/- vide demand draft No.002486 dated 19.3.2016 of HDFC Bank and some amount was deposited by the complainant to the ops in cash and through cheque. In this manner, a sum of Rs.1,99,650/- remained outstanding against the ops’ company. That the ops have assured the complainant that in case of taking the above said insurance policies, the ops will provide the complainant a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- but all in vain and the ops have not paid any loan amount to the complainant without any rhyme or reason. It is further averred that under the facts stated above, the ops have violated the terms and conditions and have not provided any loan amount to the complainant and due to above said reason, the complainant is facing serious financial crises and hence there is no reason to retain the above said amount with the ops. The ops are duly bound to return the above said amount of Rs.1,99,650/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon upto date from its due date till its final realization. That the complainant approached and requested the ops to pay the above said amount with interest but all in vain and the ops have postponed the matter with one pretext or the other and ultimately the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.1.2017 upon the ops but to no effect. Ultimately the ops have refused to admit the claim of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant Balwinder Singh “Life Assured” had submitted to the answering ops proposals/ applications for the purchase of insurance policies and the proposals were accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the complainant and consequently policies bearing Nos. 18213619, 18404640 and 18451723 were issued and the same commenced on the even date. The present complaint is an afterthought and has only been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the answering ops. It is further submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by the answering ops, the contents of the proposal/ application, illustrations and the addendum forms were read and explained to the complainant in Hindi and English language i.e. the languages best known to him. Accordingly, after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy and the proposal form, the complainant put his signatures on the same. On the basis of the information furnished in the applicant/ proposal form, the proposal was processed by the answering ops and thereafter the policy was issued to the complainant. It is further submitted that before acceptance of the proposal by the answering ops, adequate information with regard to the product, nature and its significance was given to the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. As required under the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a period of 15 days called “Free Look in period” within which he could have returned the policy to the answering ops by stating the reason thereof. The free look in period in the present policy commenced from the date of receiving the policy. In the present complaint, the receiving of the policy documents has been admitted by the complainant in the complaint and a copy of the same has also been placed on file by the complainant. The act and conduct of the complainant in not returning the policy within the given time signified his acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said policy documents. It is further submitted that complainant had not applied for any loan whatsoever. Moreover, it is the right of the answering op whether to grant loan against the life insurance policies. It is further submitted that answering ops never assured the complainant that in case the complainant purchases the above said policies then the complainant will be provided a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- against the said three policies. The complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story to get the amount of premium paid by him against the said three policies, to which the complainant is not entitled as life insurance policies provided the complainant free look in period of 30 days within which the complainant had the option to return the policy and get the premium refunded if the terms and conditions of the policy did not suit the complainant. That the free look in period is a mandatory period which is provided by the insurance company to the insured as per the guidelines of IRDA and by not returning the policies within the free look in period the complainant had waived off his right to refund of the premiums or to cancel the policy. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application for loan Ex.C1, copy of demand draft Ex.C2, copy of complaint Ex.C3, copies of courier receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6, postal receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C9, copy of demand draft Ex.C10, copy of application Ex.C11 and copy of statement of account Ex.C12. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Executive Legal Ex.R1 and copies of policies documents and letters etc. Ex.R2 to Ex.R25.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is undisputed fact between the parties that complainant had purchased three insurance policies from the opposite parties and deposited a sum of Rs.71,400/- in policy No.18213619, Rs.28,250/- in policy No.18404640 and Rs.70,000/- in policy No.18451723. As per allegations of the complainant, he had purchased these polices from the ops after the assurance given by ops that a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- will be granted to the complainant but after receiving the premium of the polices, they refused to advance loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant and they were delaying the matter on one or the other pretext. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the ops that there was no commitment for any loan of Rs.7,00,000/-. The complainant did not exercise any option during free look in period in order to get the policies cancelled. As such complainant is not entitled to the premiums as complainant has not cancelled said policies within free look in period.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has contended that out of the above said policies, amount of Rs.28,250/- of policy No.18404640 and Rs.70,000/- of policy No.18451723 have been refunded to the complainant. This fact has also been confirmed by the complainant in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A. As per version of the complainant, now a sum of Rs.1,01,400/- remained outstanding against the ops. So, the complainant is entitled to actual payment of premium of third policy from the ops. The ops have also not denied this fact. The ops have also not brought anything on record file about the circumstances/ understanding under which they have refunded the said premium of two policies to the complainant and as to why premium of third policy has been withheld by them. The refund of the premium of said two policies as stated above during the pendency of the present case by the ops to the complainant is sufficient ground to believe that the complainant was allured for loan of Rs.7,00,000/- subject to his buying three insurance policies. Hence, this amounts to unfair trade practice. Further, the complainant has not placed any record of insurance policy for Rs.30,000/-. A perusal of Ex.C12 reveals that Rs.30,000/- was deposited in his saving SF account No.50100008900686 on 19.3.2016 and was debited the same day for DD issue.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.71,400/- in respect of policy No.18213619 alongwith any additional amount, if any, charged by the ops from the complainant as per receipts and record. The ops are also directed to look into the entry of Rs.30,000/- as claimed by complainant deposited in addition to the amounts of above said three policies and to satisfy the complainant in this regard. The ops are directed to make payment of the actual payment as per records alongwith simple interest @4% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 8.3.2017 till actual realization within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case of default of payment within this stipulated period, the ops shall be liable to pay interest on the amount @9% per annum after expiry of period of 30 days. The ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within above stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.01.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
