Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/787/2013

Mahinder Gupta S/o Chand Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

28 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

 

                                                                             Complaint No. 787 of 2013.

                                                                             Date of institution: 29.10.2013.

                                                                             Date of decision: 28.09.2017.

 

Mahinder Gupta age 50 years, son of Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta, resident of House No.905, Anand Market, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life, Yamuna Nagar, Branch Plot 1/75, First Floor, Opposite Mira Bazaar, near New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, District Yanuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Jagmal Singh, Village Ratauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Ms. Preeti,  C/o Amandeep Singh son of Sh. Jagmal Singh, Village Ratauli, Tehsil Jgadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

         ….Respondents.

BEFORE         SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.      

 

Present:       Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, for complainant.   

                    Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for OP no.1.

                    Sh. Subhash Sharma, Advocate for op no.2.

                    Op No.3 already given-up.

         

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

                        The complainant Mahinder Gupta has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                    Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of October, 2008 the complainant had visited HDFC Bank, Main Branch, Yamuna Nagar for depositing his amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of “Fix Deposit”, where the Ops No.2 & 3 met the complainant by introducing themselves as authorized agent of Op No.1 and advised him to deposit the said amount in an another plan and further advised the complainant that the amount will be payable for one time only and the plan will be mature after one year.  It is alleged that accordingly, believing upon the advise of Ops No.2 & 3, the complainant deposited his amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that against the said amount of the complainant, two policies were got issued i.e. one policy in the name of complainant bearing policy No.12270905 and other one in the name of his wife namely Sunita Gupta bearing policy No.12270997 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each.  It is further alleged that accordingly after waiting for one year, when the complainant sought about the maturity of the policies, then the complainant was astonished to receive notice from the Op No.1 in which the complainant was directed to make the above policies regular for five years and he was called in the office of Op No.1 where the officials of Op No.1 obtained signatures of the complainant and his wife on some papers with the assurance that after the maturity period, the complainant will gain sufficient amount.  It is further alleged that after 5 years, when the complainant approached the Op No.1 and requested them to make the payment and on the request of the complainant, the officials of the Op No.1 intended to pay very less amount against the principal amount of the complainant, on which the complainant raised objection and then, it was disclosed by the Op No.1 to the complainant that the share of the market has become low and accordingly, the amount has been calculated at the value of share market.  It is further alleged that the complainant also served a legal notice upon the Op No.1 on 23.07.2013 but the Op No.1 failed to comply with the contents of legal notice.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint wherein it has been prayed that the Op No.1 be directed to pay double of the deposited amount alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as-well-as cost of proceedings.

3.             Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their written statement separately, whereas Op No.3 was given-up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his statement recorded separately on 21.12.2015.  Op No.1 filed written statement  raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that the answering Op is not a banking company; that before acceptance of the proposal by the answering Op No.1, the contents of the proposal/application form were read over and explained to the life assured and accordingly, after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy, the proposal form was signed by the LA to that effect; that on the basis of information furnished in the proposal form, the proposal was processed by the Op No.1 and thereafter, the said policy was issued to the LA; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands as the policy documents delivered to the LA provided him a period of 15 days within which the LA could have returned the policy to the Op No.1.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied.  It is contended that the complainant and his wife had surrendered their policies in question and the surrender value to the tune of Rs.2,44,941.30 paise and Rs.1,92,939.05 paise have already been paid to the complainant and his wife through NEFT transfer on 10.12.2012 and 26.07.2013 respectively and as such, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                    Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that he is employee of HDFC Bank Ltd. and he has no relation with the insurance company against whom the complainant has grievance; that the answering Op No.2 is engaged in working of banking services and he is not agent of insurance company and relating to insurance business he has no concern about that.  On merits, the Op No.2 has reiterated all the contents as mentioned in the preliminary objections and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.                    Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of complainant, Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                    On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Executive Legal as Annexure-R1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1/1 to Annexure-R1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.1.  The Op No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit, Annexure-R2/A and closed evidence. 

7.                    We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

8.                    Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had intended to invest Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of “Fixed Deposit” where the Ops No.2 & 3 met him by introducing themselves as the officials of HDFC Bank, who advised that in case the complainant will invest the amount in another plan, the same will gain sufficient amount for him and the amount will be payable for one year only and the plan will mature after one year.  Accordingly, the complainant had purchased two policies amounting to Rs.50,000/- each one in his name and another in the name of his wife.  It is further argued that after a period of one year, when the complainant met with the Op No.1 for taking the maturity amount, then the officials of Op No.1 obtained signatures on some papers with the assurance that after the maturity period, the complainant will get sufficient amount and after the period of five years when the complainant again met with the Op No.1 for seeking maturity amount, then the Ops paid very less amount and it is a clear cut deficiency on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                    On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the complainant has himself opted for HDFC Unit Linked Young Star Plus II policy and submitted proposal form and on the acceptance of the proposal form, the aforesaid policy was provided to the complainant and his wife.  The policy bond was also delivered to the complainant and his wife alongwith all the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant and his wife were at liberty to forego the policy within 15 days after receiving the policy but the complainant and his wife failed to do so and as such, the complainant and his wife are bound with the terms and conditions of the policy.  It is further argued that the complainant and his wife surrendered the policies in question and the surrendered value have already been paid to them.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of answering Op and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 argued that there is no relation between the Op No.2 and insurance company as the Op No.2 is an employee of HDFC Bank and he is not agent of Op No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.                  After hearing the arguments of ld. Counsel for both the parties and going through the record, it emerges that the foremost question which arises before us for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for double amount of the deposited amount or not and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops? 

                        We have gone through the document Annexure-R1/1 which is proposal form, wherein it has been clearly mentioned on the top of proposal form that the policy in question was “Unit Linked Proposal Form” and the aforesaid policy was for a period of 10 years for a premium of Rs.50,000/- p.a. and on this proposal form, the complainant has himself put his signature in English and we have also perused the document Annexure-R1/3 which is proposal form of Smt. Sunita Gupta wherein it has been clearly mentioned on the top of proposal form that the policy in question was “Unit Linked Proposal Form” and the aforesaid policy was for a period of 10 years for a premium of Rs.50,000/- p.a. and on this proposal form, the complainant has herself put her signature in English.  It means that after acceptance of the proposal form, the policy documents were issued to the complainant, which was for a term of 10 years and as per terms and conditions of the policy, if the complainant did not agree with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have returned the policy to Op No.1 by stating the reason thereof and in that eventuality arrangement were to be made to refund the premium paid by the complainant.  There is nothing, on record, that this document was not received by the complainant from the Op No.1.  Since the complainant was satisfied with the policy, obtained, on the basis of acceptance of proposal form, referred to above, he did not exercise the option to return the same.  No reliable evidence was produced by the complainant that he was given assurance by any employee of the company, contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy.  Besides this, the complainant and his wife have already surrendered the policies in question on 30.11.2012 and 23.07.2013 respectively and the surrendered value of the policies in question have already been paid to the complainant and his wife on 10.12.2012 and 26.07.2013. 

12.      Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.                     

Dated: 28.09.2017.

                                                                              (SATPAL)

                                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                            (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                               MEMBER