DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.421 of 27-09-2013

Decided on 20-03-2014

Sukhpal Singh aged about 35 years S/o Kewal Singh R/o Village Biaggarwal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

........Complainant

Versus

1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ground Floor, 3038-A, Dalip Singh Walia Complex, Guru Kanshi Marg, NH-15, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

2.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020.

3.HDFC Bank Ltd., Mati Modi Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Vikas Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the opposite party No.3.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is holding a saving account bearing No.14121000024537 in HDFC Bank, Branch Sunam and issued a cheque bearing No.81436 from the said account in favour of the opposite party No.1 to purchase a policy. The complainant deposited the first premium of the policy to the tune of Rs.50,000/- through the cheque vide receipt No.A7441472 and thereafter the opposite party No.1 assured him that the policy shall be sent to him on his residential address within a few days. The abovesaid cheque has duly been encashed by the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 neither sent any policy to the complainant till date nor the same has been received by him from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to enquire about the non-receipt of the policy, but its employees have failed to provide him any information in this regard. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party No.1 to enquire about the policy, but the opposite party No.1 has been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant has also got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 10.5.2013, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sent their reply on dated 30.5.2013 seeking the production of the certain documents from him including the copy of the cheque No.81436, copy of the bank account statement and copy of the receipt No.A7441472. The opposite party No.3 also gave the reply to the said legal notice on dated 25.5.2013 to the effect that the policy No.15303288 has been issued to the complainant on dated 20.7.2012 although he never received any alleged policy. In the meantime, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 again deducted the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the account of the complainant bearing No.14121000024537 with HDFC Bank Ltd., Sunam on dated 20.7.2013, without his knowledge and consent or without giving any prior intimation in this regard and has not issued him the policy for which he has been visiting the office of the opposite party No.1 from the last more than 6 months from time to time. The complainant again got issued a legal notice dated 3.8.2013 to the opposite parties and requested the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to send him the original policy or in alternative to refund him the amount of Rs.1 lac within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, but again they have failed to send him any policy and sent the reply to the legal notice on dated 13.8.2013. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 alleged in the reply to the legal notice that they have sent the policy bearing No.15303288 to the complainant, but he has not received any alleged policy from them till date. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further alleged in their reply to the notice, regarding the issuance of the duplicate policy to the complainant in the month of December, 2012 and its delivery on dated 10.12.2012 through Overnite courier, but the complainant never received any such duplicate policy. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund him the total amount of Rs.1 lac alongwith upto date interest and other benefits besides cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, as such he is not entitled for any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, he voluntarily purchased the 'Unit Linked Insurance Policy' i.e. HDFC SL Crest Policy bearing No.15303288 with his own free will and never opted for seeking its cancellation within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the abovesaid policy that has been sent to him through speed post No.ED331580317IN on dated 23.7.2012. The complainant approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and submitted them the indemnity bond for the issuance of the duplicate policy documents and on his request the same has been issued and sent to him through the Overnite courier and delivered to him on dated 10.12.2012. The complainant has himself mentioned his education qualification as Higher Secondary in the proposal form, thus he is estopped from raising any objection at this stage. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 denied that the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been deducted from the account of the complainant maintained with the opposite party No.3 without his knowledge or consent or without any prior intimation, rather the said amount has been deducted as per the direct debit mandate for auto debit of the renewal premium given by the complainant at the time of issuance of the abovesaid policy. Thus the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have relied upon various authorities on various aspects of the matter.

3. The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum as he has purchased the abovesaid policy with his own free will and signed the direct debit mandate, according to which the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are given the authority through which the opposite party No.3 can withdraw the insurance premium from the account of the complainant and cannot stop such withdrawal till he cancels the direct debit mandate according to the procedure. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant is holding a saving account bearing No.14121000024537 in HDFC Bank, Branch Sunam and issued a cheque bearing No.81436 from the said account with HDFC Bank, Sunam in favour of the opposite party No.1 to purchase a policy. The complainant deposited the first premium of the policy to the tune of Rs.50,000/- through cheque vide receipt No.A7441472.

7. The disputed facts of the parties are that the cheque No.81436 has duly been encashed by the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 neither sent any policy to the complainant till date nor the same has been received by him from the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to enquire about the non-receipt of the policy, but its employees have failed to provide him any information in this regard. The complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party No.1 to enquire about the abovesaid policy, but the opposite party No.1 has been postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. The complainant has got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on dated 10.5.2013, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sent the reply to the said legal notice on dated 30.5.2013 seeking the production of certain documents from him including the copy of the cheque No.81436, copy of the bank account statement and copy of the receipt No.A7441472. The opposite party No.3 also gave the reply to the said legal notice on dated 25.5.2013 alleging that the policy No.15303288 has been issued to the complainant on dated 20.7.2012 although he never received any alleged policy. In the meantime, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 again deducted the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the account of the complainant bearing No.14121000024537 with HDFC Bank Ltd., Sunam on dated 20.7.2013, without his knowledge and consent and without giving him any prior intimation. The complainant further submitted that he has been visiting the office of the opposite party No.1 from the last more than 6 months from time to time, he again got issued a legal notice dated 3.8.2013 to the opposite parties and requested the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to send him the original policy or in alternative to refund him the amount of Rs.1 lac within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, but again they have failed to send him the policy and sent the reply to the legal notice on dated 13.8.2013 to the effect that they have sent the policy bearing No.15303288 to the complainant, but he did not received any alleged policy from them till date. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further alleged in their reply regarding the issuance of the duplicate policy to the complainant in the month of December, 2012 and its delivery on dated 10.12.2012 through Overnite courier, but the complainant never received any such duplicate policy from them.

8. The submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties with an intention of gaining the substantial profits out of the same by investment in the shares through the unit linked scheme, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable as per the precedent laid down in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (3) CPJ 203. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant voluntarily purchased the 'Unit Linked Insurance Policy' i.e. HDFC SL Crest Policy bearing No.15303288 with his own free will and never opted for seeking its cancellation within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy that has been sent to him through speed post No.ED331580317IN dated 23.7.2012. The complainant approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and submitted them the indemnity bond for the issuance of the duplicate policy documents and on his request the duplicate policy documents have been issued and sent to him through Overnite courier and delivered to him on dated 10.12.2012 vide Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/8. The complainant has himself mentioned his education qualification as Higher Secondary in the proposal form, Ex.OP1/3, thus he is estopped from raising any objection at this stage and in this regard the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have referred the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case titled as Tata AIG Vs. Gulzari Singh in Revision No.1255 of 2009, decided on 26.2.2010. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that the policy terms are not in dispute in this complaint. The policy in question is still alive with the next premium due on 20.7.2014. The complainant at the most can demand the policy but he cannot claim the refund of the premium of Rs.1 lac.

9. The submission of the opposite party No.3 is that the complainant has purchased the abovesaid policy with his own free will and signed the direct debit mandate, according to which the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are given the authority through which they can withdraw the amount from the account of the complainant maintained with the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 cannot stop such withdrawal till the complainant cancels the direct debit mandate as per the procedure laid down.

10. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have taken the legal objection that this complaint is not maintainable and have referred the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (3) CPJ 203, this objection of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is not tenable in the light of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana Vs. UTI of India and Anr., Original Petition No.51 of 2005, decided on 17.4.2009, I (2012) CPJ 166 (NC), wherein it has been held:-

“i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(g), 21(a)(i)-Jurisdiction-Investment-Improving 'Livelihood Security' of employees-Complaint Maintainability of-Consumer-Commercial Purpose-Complainant /University invested funds of its employees with OP for their benefits-Some dispute regarding investments arose-Complaint filed-Deficiency in service alleged-Maintainability of complaint challenged on ground that complainant is not consumer as complainant invested money knowingly and investment could not be said to be for 'self-employment' or 'for earning his livelihood'-Reference made to decide that whether the complainant covered under definition of 'consumer' or not-It is clear that what was hired by complainant was 'services' and not goods-Aim of Act is to protect economic interest of consumer as understood in commercial sense as a purchaser of goods and in larger sense of user of services-Explanation following Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Act would be clarificatory in nature and does not supplant meaning of word 'consumer', vis-a-vis, 'services' as it appears in main section where exclusion clause will come into play if it is for 'commercial' purpose-Having gone through meaning of word 'commercial' defined under various law dictionaries, it is no doubt that words 'commercial purpose' would cover undertaking, objective which is to make a 'profit'-Investment made by University for improving 'livelihood security' of their employees who would be left with better 'financial security', after retirement-Therefore, investment shall not under any circumstances fall under word 'commercial' excluding complainant from definition of 'consumer'-In view of above, no merit in objection raised by OP-Complaint is maintainable.”

Thus as per the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana Vs. UTI of India and Anr. (Supra), this complaint is maintainable.

11. The complainant has submitted that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have themself deducted the amount of Rs.50,000/- from his account, maintained with the opposite party No.3. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant with his own free will signed the direct debit mandate, in which he has given the authority to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to withdraw the amount of premium towards the policy in question from his account, maintained with the opposite party No.3 vide Ex.OP1/7. The complainant has signed this document. If the complainant was not satisfied with the direct debit mandate, he could have stopped such withdrawals. The complainant has sought the cancellation of his policy and refund of the total amount of Rs.1 lac deposited by him alongwith interest on the pretext that no policy documents have been duly supplied to him till date, whereas the policy documents have been sent to him through Speed Post No.ED331580317IN on dated 23.7.2012. The complainant approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and submitted indemnity bond with them for the issuance of the duplicate policy documents and on his request the same has been again issued to him and sent to him through the Overnite courier and delivered to him on dated 10.12.2012 after understanding the terms and conditions mentioned overleaf. The relevant portion of the terms and conditions of Declaration for Direct Debit, Ex.OP1/7, is as follows:-

“6) I/We agree that in the event of the bank being unable to debit my account for want of sufficient funds or for any other reason, HDFC Standard Life shall be entitled to deal with my policy in the manner as described in the policy provisions, unless the payment is received by any alternate mode on or before the specified date.

8) I/We agree that the premium will be debited started from the premium due date/preferred billing date which occurs after the date of this mandate, till the last premium due date unless the mandate is revoked.

a) I/We agree and understand that 'Preferred Billing Date' should be within 30 days of the PTD and will always be before the PTD.

b) I/We agree that the premium will be debited on the 'Preferred Billing Date', if opted and this date will not be revised till the last premium due date unless the mandate is revoked.

c) I/We agree and understand that in cases where the Preferred Billing Date is opted for, and if the payment of premium by such mode amounts to advance payment of premium, then such amount will remain as an interest-free deposit with us and will be settled against the concerned policy only on the premium due date and not on the preferred billing date.”

Thus the contention of the complainant that neither the policy documents nor its terms and conditions have been supplied to him till date is falsified by the documents placed on file. However, the complainant can again apply for the issuance of the policy documents or its terms and conditions with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and they are bound to issue him the duplicate policy and its terms and conditions. The complainant has paid two premiums of Rs.50,000/- each and the due date of the next premium is 20.7.2014. The policy of the complainant is still alive/inforce in such circumstances the complainant can either continue with the policy or can apply for the surrender as per surrender clause mentioned in the policy document.

12. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-03-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member