DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No. 142 of 27-03-2012
Decided on 16-08-2012
Sunil Gupta, aged about 33 years, s/o Sh. Yash Pal, resident of House No.207 Veer Colony, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager Guru Kanshi Marg, Near Ahluwalia Complex, Bathinda.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the insurance policy vide No.10321945 and made the payment of Rs.1,07,500/- and he was assured by the opposite party that he is not required to make any further payment as insurance premium is to be paid only for three years. The complainant alleged that neither any cover note was given to the complainant, not separate terms and conditions were ever supplied nor free look period was provided to him. The opposite party got signatures of the complainant on many blank printed documents and was told that these documents were required for the commencement of the policy. The opposite party approached the complainant and told that he has to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- per year for 3 years and he will be insured for Rs.2 lacs and in case he wants to get the refund of the amount then he will be given the premium amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith bonus and no charges shall be deducted and he can claim refund of the amount at any stage. In the month of April, 2008, the complainant was in need of money and as such he has applied for partial surrender of Rs.40,000/- that was given to him by the cheque and the amount was shown in unit statement. Few days back the complainant went to the opposite party and was surprised to know that another amount Rs.40,000/- has been shown deducted from the unit account on 29.7.2009 as partial surrender without any instruction from the complainant. The complainant further alleged that neither any such withdrawal was ever applied nor any such cheque was ever received by the complainant from the opposite party. As such, the opposite party cannot directly withdraw any amount from the policy of the complainant and the complainant immediately requested the opposite party to supply him the document of such authorization on the basis of which the opposite party has withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- from his unit account but the complainant was never supplied any unit statement or informed that Rs.40,000/- has been withdrawn at its own from units of the complainant. The complainant was asked to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest and bonus but the opposite party refused to refund any amount. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- alongwith cost and compensation.
2. The notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and has pleaded that the complaint is hopelessly time barred as the alleged cause of action relates back to 29.7.2009 and the present complaint has been filed in the year 2012 i.e. after more than 2 years. The policy is lying in paid up status for non payment of the premium due on 15.4.2009 and only one withdrawal/surrender of Rs.40,000/- has been shown/deducted from the said policy account of the complainant. The complainant has purchased the policy of the opposite party voluntarily after fully understanding the contents of the proposal form, signed a declaration in the proposal form to this effect. The complainant himself is literate person and doing work as a Sales development Manager with the opposite party itself and the objections are not maintainable. The opposite party further pleaded that the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.10,000/- per year for 3 years and the policy paying terms was for 10 years. The complainant never told that he makes the refund alongwith interest @18% per annum. The opposite party has also denied that the complainant has made the payment of Rs.1,07,500/- and has not given any details of the payment of Rs.1,07,500/-. The insurance policy No.10321945 clearly shows that the annual premium was Rs.10,000/- with mode of payment as quarterly i.e. Rs.2,500/- per quarter. The opposite party pleaded that the policy documents were sent to the complainant immediately after issuance of the policy alongwith copy of the proposal form. The manager of the opposite party never got signatures of the complainant on any blank printed documents. The complainant had applied for the partial surrender of Rs.40,000/- in April, 2008. On his request on 4.8.2008, Rs.40,000/- was paid to him, later on it was noticed by the opposite party that the renewal premium due on 15.7.2008 was unpaid due to cheque bounce, thus to rectify the entry of partial surrender, at the same time on the same date i.e. on 4.8.2008 partial surrender reversal was made by the opposite party and partial surrender request was shown on dated 29.7.2009. The opposite party deducted Rs.40,000/- from the unit account on 29.7.2009. The complainant had applied for partial surrender of Rs.40,000/- on 4.8.2008 and he was given a cheque of Rs.40,000/- but the renewal premium was due on 15.7.2008 and the same remained unpaid due to bouncing of cheque. The opposite party even wrote a letter dated 31.10.2009 in reply to the letter of the complainant dated 7.10.2009 that due to same technical reasons and non payment of renewal premium due on 15.7.2008, partial withdrawal which was proceeded on 4.8.2008 was reversed and rectified the same, partial withdrawal was shown to be processed on 27.7.2009. The policy revived by paying outstanding premium of Rs.7,500/- for the period from 15.4.2009 to 15.10.2009, as such, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of Rs.40,000/-.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The contention of the complainant is that in the month of April, 2008, he applied for partial surrender of Rs.40,000/- from his policy No. 10321945 and was given the cheque of Rs.40,000/- by the opposite party and the amount withdrawn was shown in the statement. He submitted that after sometime when he checked his withdrawal account statement, he was surprised to know that another amount of Rs.40,000/- has been shown deducted from the unit account on 29.7.2009 as partial surrender without any instruction from the complainant as he has neither applied for such withdrawal or any such cheque was ever received by him and the opposite party cannot directly withdraw any amount from the policy of the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party to supply the document of such authorization on the basis of which the opposite party has directly withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- from his unit account on 29.7.2009. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- but it has refused to do so.
6. On the other hand, the opposite party submitted that the complainant has admitted in para No.5 of the complaint that he made the withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- by way of partial surrender in April, 2008 actually the withdrawal request was made on 4.8.2008 and the same was allowed and Rs.40,000/- was paid but entries were reversed on 4.8.2008 itself as the same could not be allowed due to the technical problem as the cheque for premium due on 15.7.2008 was dishonoured which has been shown on the entry dated 15.7.2008 in Ex.C3. Therefore, the entry of partial withdrawal of Rs.40,000/- was shown on 29.7.2009, as such, there is double entry of withdrawal but the amount has been drawn only once. There is no loss to the complainant rather he has gained out of it as the entry dated 4.8.2008 to be made by the cancelling the unit at the rate of 23.7085 whereby 28.1246 units would have been cancelled whereas in entry dated 4.8.2008, the units were cancelled at 23.7085 per units.
7. A perusal of Ex.C2 reveals that the statement of account dated 25 march, 2012 have the total value of plan as Rs.67,256.49/-, Ex.C3 the account statement also shows that on 16.3.2012, the fund switch is Rs.67,135.56. A further perusal of this account statement shows the entries dated 4.8.2008 as partial surrender withdrawal, account entries were reversed on the same date i.e. on 4.8.2008 for partial surrender reversal of Rs.40,000/-, the same entry has been shown on 29.7.2009 i.e. partial surrender of Rs.40,000/-. The end page of the account statement shows the fund switch on 16.3.2012 as Rs.67,135.56. This is very much clear from the account statement Ex.C3 that partial withdrawal was shown on 4.8.2008 but the entry was reversed due to technical problem as the cheque for the premium due on 15.7.2008 was dishonoured. This entry is clear in Ex.C3 dated 15.7.2008 and the same entry was shown on 29.7.2009. Moreover, the opposite party has written a letter to the complainant vide Ex.R4 in which they have specifically mentioned that due to technical reasons and non payment of renewal premium which was due on 15.7.2008, the partial withdrawal which was processed on 4.8.2008 has been reversed and shown partial withdrawal on 29.7.2009. Moreover, the complainant has himself placed on file the account statement which shows its balance Rs.67,256.49 after deducting Rs.40,000/-.
8. The onus to prove his allegations lies on the person who alleges it i.e. the complainant. He has failed to prove the allegations made by him. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s.KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, 2001 (1) CLT (SC) wherein it was held:-
“Deficiency in service-Burden of proof-The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”
9. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of considered view that there is no deficiency in service as the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the opposite party has withdrawn the amount of Rs.40,000/- twice from his account. Thus, this complaint fails and hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. 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:-
16-08-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
