Date of filing : 2.8.2017

Judgment : Dt.21.1.2019

Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.

            This Consumer Complainant is filed by the Complainant namely Sri Arijit Das under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against opposite parties namely (1) HDFC Standard Life Insurance, (2) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. (OP No.1 & 2 having their offices in Mumbai) and (3) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. having office at Gariahat, Kolkata, alleging unfair trade practice on their part.

            Complainant’s case in brief is that being convinced by the authorized agent of the opposite party No.3, Complainant purchased HDFC SL CLASSIC ASSURE Insurance Plan being Policy No.16026092 dated 13.4.2013. Premium amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the Complainant. Complainant was made to understand by the authorisesd agent of OP No.3 at the time of taking policy that it was one-time payment policy and Company will refund the premium with interest after three years. But after payment of premium when the policy certificate and documents thereto was received, Complainant was shocked to see that the policy was for 10 years and the premium was to be paid on yearly basis for 07 years continuously. Authorised agent of the OP No.3 had suppressed the fact at the time of taking of policy. So, Complainant requested the OP No.3 repeatedly to cancel the said policy and to refund the premium amount but all in vain. Ultimately, Complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Advocate on 15.09.2015 to cancel the policy and to refund the premium amount but nothing was done by the OP and thus present complaint has been filed by the Complainant praying for direct ing the opposite parties to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,000/- along with interest, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            Complainant has annexed documents i.e. copy of notice sent through his Ld. Advocate and copy of policy.

            Opposite parties have contested the case by filing the written version denying the material allegation made in the complaint petition contending inter alia that after having understood the terms and conditions of policies, Complainant purchased the Policy where total sum assured is Rs.1,13,770/-. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 13^th April, 2013 as first premium and second premium on 13^th April, 2014. In the policy bond it is clearly written that “cancellation in the free look period”. Complainant never approached to the opposite parties within 30 days for cancellation of the policy where the policy was issued on 16^th April, 2013. Opposite parties have thus prayed for dismissal of the case.

            During the course of evidence, both the parties filed their respective affidavit-in-chiefs, questionnaires and reply thereto.

            Both sides advanced their respective arguments. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, being First Appeal No.A/117/2015. Ld. Advocate for the opposite parties, has also cited the case laws reported in 1(2016) CPJ 190(NC) and in III(2015)CPJ 56 (NC).

            So, following points are to be determined :-

            1) Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

            2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed?

            Decision with reasons

            Point No.1 & 2 :

Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.

            Complainant has claimed that he had purchased one HDFC Life Classic Assure Insurance being No.16465781 and had paid Rs.20,000/- as one time premium with a belief that it was for only three years. But, he has not filed any document showing purchase of the policy. However, OP has not denied or disputed about purchase of policy by the Complainant but it is specifically contended that the Complainant bought the said policy being fully understood the terms and conditions that it was for 10 years with annual premium of Rs.35,103/- to be paid for 07 years.

            A letter submitted by the Complainant to OP No.3 on 13.8.2015 is also filed by the Complainant, wherefrom it appears Complainant himself has stated that premium of Rs.36,187/- was paid by him, which supports the case of the OP. Said letter is in total contrast to the case of the Complainant in the complain petition.

            Complainant has not stated anywhere in the petition of the complaint as to why he could not file the policy document. However, it appears from the said letter filed before OP it is stated that someone representing himself as agent of OP, had taken the original policy from the Complainant but it is strange that Complainant himself claims that he was misrepresented and misled by another agent of the OP who made him to purchase the policy but in spite of that, he handed over the policy to one another person claiming agent.

            In this case policy is required because according to Complainant he paid Rs.20,000/- only which is contrary to his own letter dated 13.8.2015.

            Complainant has not stated anywhere the date as to when he received the policy and when he lost it or handed over to said alleged agent.

            In fact, barring the said letter which is filed by OP, Complainant has absolutely not stated anything about the loss of policy in the complaint petition or anywhere during his evidence. So, on consideration that premium of Rs.36,187/- was paid by the Complainant, his case in the complaint that he was made to understand by OP’s agent that it is onetime payment policy of Rs.20,000/-, cannot be accepted and thus this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            These points are answered accordingly.

            Hence

                               ordered

            CC/451/2017 is dismissed on contest.