Punjab

Nawanshahr

RBT/CC/43/2016

Bikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Sharma, Vikram Sharma

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

                     RBT/Consumer Complaint No.  43 of 26.05.2016

                      Date of Decision                       :   15.01.2018

 

 

Bikram Singh aged 55 years S/o Sh.Chur Singh R/o B/H M.C. Office, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate Mumbai – 400 020, through its Managing Director.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Right Portion, Banga, Road, Near PSEB Godown, Nawanshahr, through its Branch Manager.
3. Jarnail Singh Finance Consultant of Opposite Party No.1&2, R/o VPO Dhamai, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

cOUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant   :         Sh.Vikram Sharma, Advocate

For OP No.1&2   :         Sh.Pushpinder Kataria, Advocate

For OP No.3.       :         Dismissed as Withdrawn

 

QUORUM:

S.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. This complaint has been received from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur by transfer in compliance of order dated 27.01.2016 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. Brief facts of the complaint that the OP No.1&2 are running insurance business for consideration and Op No.3 is finance consultant of Op No.1&2.  In the month of December, 2008, the OP No.3 approached to the complainant and suggested him to invest Rs.3,00,000/- in fixed deposit plan of Op No.1&2.  OP-3 also assured to the complainant that he will get 12% interest on this amount.  Moreover, the complainant hold option to withdraw the amount after one year and in case complainant would like to renew the amount even after one year in that event he will get more interest.  That the complainant was shocked after one year when the complainant received a call from OP-2 to pay the next year payment.  The complainant informed that he had invested the money for one year only but complainant was informed that he should pay the amount till the completion of the plan.  Moreover, the complainant made written representation to the OPs.  Complainant received a letter dated 16.07.2010 vide which his cancellation request was rejected by the OPs.  Further, the complainant was much surprised to know that his amount was invested in the Unit Linked Pension II Plan for which he was never informed.  Even no documents were supplied to the complainant by OPs in this regard.  Complainant approached to the OPs many times to redress his grievance but all in vain.  Hence this complaint. Complainant also prayed that complaint of the complainant be accepted and OPs be directed to refund Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @24% P.A. from the date of deposit till its realization. Further, the OPs also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- due to inconvenience, harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and OPs be also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. In reply, the OPs No.1&2 submitted that the present complaint filed by complainant by suppressing original facts and circumstances and misleading this Forum. Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur has got no jurisdiction over the present complaint as the policy in question has been purchased by the complainant in Nawanshahr.  The proposal form for the purchase of the said insurance policy was filled and signed by the complainant at Nawanshahr on 30.12.2008.  Learned District Consumer Forum, Hoshiarpur has got no jurisdiction on the present complaint as the office of OP No.1&2 are situated at Mumbai and Nawanshahr respectively.  Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.  On merits, the complaint to the extent admitted that the OP No.1&2 are in Life Insurance Business.  The complainant has exercise his option to cancel the Insurance Policy with 15 days free look period from the receipt of policy documents.  The policy documents have been delivered to the complainant which made him aware about the terms and conditions of the policy and payment of premium.  The complainant has purchased three insurance policies prior to purchase of present insurance policy and has cancelled two insurance policies out of three insurance policies within free look period.  So complainant knows about free look period and could have availed the same if he was not satisfied with the policy.  Lastly prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complaint against Op No.3 has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.2016 in terms of recorded statement of counsel for complainant.
5. In order to prove the case, Sh.Vishal Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant, has made statement that as per instruction of complainant, complaint, affidavit and evidence produced before the District Consumer Forum, Hoshiarpur be read as part and parcel of this complaint.  From the record, it transpired that complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, letter dated 09.06.2010 Ex.C-2, letter dated 16.07.2010 Ex.C-3, letter dated 18.08.2010 Ex.C-4, letter dated 03.09.2010 Ex.C-5, letter dated 08.09.2010 Ex.C-6, affidavit of Jarnail Singh Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, Sh.Pushpinder Kataria, , Advocate, counsel for OP No.1&2, has made statement that as per directions of company i.e. Op No.1&2, written version and evidence produced before the District Consumer Forum, Hoshiarpur be read as part and parcel of this complaint.  From the record, it transpired that OP No.1&2 has tendered affidavit of Harsimran Singh Ex.R-1, proposal form dated 30.12.2008 Mark R-2, quotation dated 30.12.2008 – Mark R-3 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
7. After hearing of both the parties we find that the contention of the complainant is that the Op No.1&2 are running Insurance business for consideration and OP No.3 is their financial consultant.  OP No.3 in the month of December 2008 approached to the complainant and suggested to invest Rs.3,00,000/- in fixed deposit plan of OP No.1&2 and also assured by OP No.3 that the complainant will get minimum 12% interest per annum on this amount.  Moreover, complainant had a liberty to withdraw the amount after one year.  In case the complainant would like to renew the amount even after one year in that event he will get more interest.  Complainant shocked when he received letter dated 16.07.2010 that his cancellation request was rejected by OPs.  Complainant was surprised when his amount was invested in Unit Linked Pension II Plan for which he was never informed.  Learned counsel for complainant contended that Jarnail Singh – OP-3 in affidavit Ex.C-7 has admitted that complainant was issued a wrong policy.  Therefore, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @24% P.A. from the date of deposit till its realization and Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses also claimed. 
8. Learned counsel for OP No.1&2 has argued that prior to purchase of policy in dispute complainant got cancelled his two insurance policy within free look period of 15 days.  The policy documents even delivered by the Op No.1&2 to the complainant and complainant is fully aware about terms and conditions of the policy as well as payment of premium.  So complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
9. As per Ex.C-7, the OP-3 namely Jarnail Singh stated by way of his affidavit that he wrongly issued the said policy to the complainant for payment of next premium of policy @3,00,000/- each.  As per para No.3 of his affidavit, he admitted his fault by stated that he wrongly issued the policy in dispute.  Moreover, the Op No.1&2 in their written statement, they neither denied that OP No.3 is their financial consultant nor disprove his affidavit by way of any other rebuttal evidence.
10. As per record file, the proposal form executed by complainant at Nawanshahr on 30.12.2008 as marked R-2.  OP No.1 has its registered office at Mumbai and Branch Office at Nawanshahr.  Moreover, the Op No.1&2 are not carrying their business in District Hoshiarpur.  In the light of Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
2. any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

11. We have carefully examined the case file no part of cause of action has been accrued within territorial jurisdiction of Hoshiarpur. However, complainant executed proposal form at Nawanshahr and put his signatures on it as marked R-2 on 30.12.2008.
12. Resultantly, complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the OP No.1&2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit to till realization.  Further, the OP No.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
13. Entire compliance be made by th1e OP No.1&2 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
15. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 15.01.2018

            

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

     Member                             President