- Rahat Parveen,
P-94/B, Garden Reach Road,
Behind Shahi Imambara, Kolkata-24. ______Complainant
___Versus___
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
26A, 1st Floor Hindustan Park,
Gariahat, Kolkata-29. _______Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 13 Dated 21-01-2014.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is a policy holder of HDFCSL Classic Assure Policy no.14812477 and took the policy in the month of Dec. 2011. All the documents requested by HDFC Life are provided and the application was filed by HDFC Life executive. The policy term mentioned at that time was 20 years and given option of changing or denying it within 30 days if customers requests so.
The policy was taken in Dec. 2011 and till date complainant is yet to receive any policy kit or any hard copy documents against the policy. After visiting and enquiring several times the “Gariahat – Kolkata” branch of HDFC Life they told that the kit was dispatched at wrong address and someone actually received as well. At the time of application complainant provided correct documents and due to mistake of HDFC Life executive the pin code was mentioned as ‘700051’ instead of ‘700024’. The branch asked the complainant to provide the address proof again and complainant did the same but branch told that it’s only delivered by the Head Office and asked the complainant to e-mail them for welcome kit. When complainant sent e-mail to customer support for the same they told that due to wrong address information the policy document could not deliver and return back twice (it means original policy document is with HDFC Life). It’s now 9 months complainant is yet to get the policy documents but complainant is paying all the premium without any failure which directly deduct from the account. HDFC Life changed the term from 20 years to 10 years. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that the policy documents were not supplied by o.p. and complainant admitted that complainant furnished address wrongly in the proposal form and considering the entire materials on record we find that the complainant has failed to substantiate and prove this case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case stands dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
