Delhi

South Delhi

CC/213/2020

RAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STANDARD LIFE - Opp.Party(s)

RITESH KUMAR MISHRA

01 Apr 2021

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/213/2020
( Date of Filing : 07 Nov 2020 )
 
1. RAJESH KUMAR
FLAT NO. I-022, RAHIYA VEDANTA, SECTOR-108, GURUGRAM, HARYANA
GURUGRAM
HARYANA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC STANDARD LIFE
VARDHMAN TRADE CENTRE, S/F, NEHRU PLACE
SOUTH
DELHI
2. BAJAJ FINSERV
K103A- K103B, F/F, ABOVE 4 SEVEN STORE, LAJPAT NAGAR-2,
SOUTH
DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MS. REKHA RANI PRESIDENT
  KIRAN KAUSHAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Shri Ritesh Kumar Mishra Adv for the Complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
Dated : 01 Apr 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Sh. Rajesh Kumar          Versus         HDFC Standard Life Insurance & Anr.

Case No. 213/2020

08.04.2021

Present:       None

 

 

It is Complainant’s case that he obtained a loan from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company (OP No.1) which forcibly sold an insurance policy to the Complainant. Though he repaid the loan within 3 months and the policy was automatically surrendered but he was not returned money on pro-rata basis but was given less than 30%. 

Complainant in support his case has neither annexed any insurance policy nor the loan agreement. Further the date of taking the loan facility and insurance policy is nowhere mentioned in the pleadings. However, study of the order passed by Office of the Insurance Ombudsman annexed with the complaint reveals that the life insurance policy was taken by the complainant on 01.03.2016.  The Complainant has pleaded that the loan was paid within three months and on repayment of the loan, the insurance policy stood automatically surrendered.

Therefore from the facts stated above, the inference drawn is that the cause of action in the instant case arose in 2016 itself and as per Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the same is filed beyond period of two years. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.

Copy of this order be given dasti. File be consigned to record room.   

 

 

Announced on 08.04.2021.

 
 
[HON'BLE MS. REKHA RANI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ KIRAN KAUSHAL]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.