Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/18/2016

Vineet Chaudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Shrey Goel Adv. & Rishab Gupta Adv.

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	18 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	06.01.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	14.12.2016

 

 

 

 

Vineet Chaudhary s/o Sh.Ved Parkash, R/o H.No.102, Surya Tower, VIP Road, Zirakpur District Mohali.

             …………..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Ramam House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church gate, Mumbai 400020

 

2]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance, 5^th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai 400064

 

3]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance, SCO No.50-51, Second Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

 

4]  The Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO 119-20, Chandigarh, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

 

 

 …………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH          MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Rishabh Gupta, Counsel for the complainant.

Ms.Manu Loona, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                                 The facts in issue are that Sh.Ved Parkash, father of the complainant availed a life insurance policy “Child Double Benefit Plan” bearing No.10279337 from OPs in the year 2005 for a term of 15 years at the annual premium of Rs.5147/-. The last receipt of premium paid is of 15.7.2014. Sh.Ved Parkash expired on 26.12.2014 and thereafter, the complainant submitted a claim with the OPs along with all requisite documents, but the OPs failed to make payment. Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to the OPs but to no result. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is also stated that the proposal was filled up in Kaithal and policy was issued from head Office of company at Mumbai and even the complainant is not resident of Chandigarh. It is submitted that the nominee in the said policy was Smt.Shakuntla Chaudhary.  It is also submitted that the complainant has not submitted the proof of his parentage or any will in his favour and mandatory succession certificate, therefore, the death claim cannot be processed in absence of these documents. Pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       The complainant also filed replication reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have examined the entire evidence & documents on record thoroughly.

 

6]       Sh.Ved Parkash has paid renewal premium of Rs.5700/- for the policy NO.10279337 to OPs at their Chandigarh Branch of HDFC on 15.7.2014.  As per Section 11(2) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the Opposite Party or each of the Opposite Parties at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

 

7]       The Opposite Party carries on business within the territory of District Forum, Chandigarh and the last premium for renewal of the policy was deposited on 15.7.2014 at Chandigarh Branch of OPs by late Sh.Ved Parkash before his death, hence the present complaint before this Forum is within jurisdiction.

 

8]       Sh.Vineet Chaudhary, the complainant in his complaint dated 5.11.2015, filed on 6.1.2016, has claimed the insurance benefit in his favour, without disclosing the complete details about persons, who are legal heirs and entitled for succession to the estate of late Sh.Ved Parkash.

 

9]       The complainant has disclosed the name of his sister namely Smt.Reema Singla, who is also co-legal heir and entitled for equal share, only in his replication, which he has filed in this case on 23.9.2016.

 

10]      Sh.Ved Parkash, who expired on 26.12.2014, has not left any testamentary document or will to bequeath his property.  His wife Smt.Shakuntla Chaudhary, the nominee in the policy has already died on 12.6.2014.

 

11]      The OPs have not repudiated the claim with reference to the insurance policy No.10279337, but only has asked for submission of necessary documents, which includes Succession Certificate from the complainant. The demand of the Opposite Parties for production of succession certificate by the complainant before release of insurance benefits, is justified.

 

12]      The complainant has suppressed material information in his complaint and has not come to the court with clean hands. The complaint, as such, is disposed of accordingly for needful action on the part of the complainant to submit all the requisite documents to the OPs to facilitate the release of amount of insurance benefits. The Opposite Parties are further directed to release the insurance benefits, as permissible under the rules, within one month from the date of receipt of requisite documents from the complainant. 

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

14^th December, 2016                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER