STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | 140 of 2012 | Date of Institution | 23.04.2012 | Date of Decision | 20.07.2012 |
Sh. Prem Chand, resident of House No.2165/2, Sector 45C, Chandigarh – 160047 (U.T.). ...Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.50-51, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160017. 2. H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 5th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Malad (WEST), Mumbai – 400064 (through its Director). .. Respondents/Opposite Parties. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER Argued by: Sh. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order, dated 28.03.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) vide which, the complaint bearing No.544 of 2011 was allowed, against the respondents/opposite parties and they were directed as under: - “8. In view of the factual position, it is evident that the Complainant has a right to be paid back the surrender value as per his request, but the Opposite Parties have not done so because he has not signed the discharge voucher. However, the right of the Complainant still continues. Accordingly, we allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the surrender value of the policy to the Complainant. The surrender value on the date the policy became due for surrender i.e. 28/02/2011 be compared with the surrender value on the date of this order i.e. today 28/03/2012 and the higher of the two amounts be paid to the Complainant. This amount be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant within 30 days of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount due along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of payment. Opposite Parties will also pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant was the holder of Policy No.11676994, issued by opposite parties, for which he had been making regular payment of premium, for the past three years. It was stated that after making payment of Rs.90,000/- in all, the complainant had requested the opposite parties vide letter dated 10/14.02.2011 for giving him back, the surrender value of the policy as per the terms and conditions thereof . It was further stated that the complainant was informed, by the opposite parties, that the surrender value was about Rs.69,489/- or Rs.67,017/- only, thereby giving him a capital loss of Rs.23,520/-. It was further stated that despite so many requests/reminders sent to the opposite parties, the complainant was not paid the surrender value of the policy in question. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, he filed a complaint before the District Forum and prayed for grant of surrender value of the policy in question, along with interest, compensation and costs of litigation. 3. A joint reply was filed by opposite parties, wherein they stated that the complainant had applied for the surrender/ cancellation of the policy vide letter dated 16.09.2011. It was further stated that the complainant was required to sign the discharge –cum- surrender of policy form, which was valid till 22.07.2011. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant did not sign the document, hence the same could not be considered. He was again requested to apply for fresh surrender with the fresh request. It was stated that complainant was asked to fill in a fresh request, so that the policy could be considered for surrender, which was not done by him. Thus, denying all other allegations, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. In response to the reply, filed by the opposite parties, the complainant filed replication, wherein he stated that despite a later request made on 8.8.2011 to know about the surrender value, the opposite parties did not pay the same to him. However, he reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order. 7. Aggrieved against the order, passed by the District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the instant appeal, for award of Rs.22,983/- being loss of capital amount, compensation and interest @15% per annum on the amount of surrender value from 28.02.2011. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant has assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that it has erred in not awarding interest and compensation as also Rs.22,983/- being loss of capital amount. He further submitted that the appellant/complainant after paying the premium of Rs.90,000/- for three years, requested the respondents/opposite parties for refund of the surrender value of the policy in question, vide letter dated 10/14.2.2011 (at running page No.91 of the District Forum record), but they have not refunded the surrender value till date, which caused immense mental agony and harassment to him. He further submitted that subsequently also, numerous letters/reminders, were sent to the respondents/opposite parties, but neither any heed was paid to his requests nor the surrender value of the policy in question, was paid to the appellant/complainant. Thus, the Counsel for the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum and award of reliefs, as claimed in the complaint. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submitted that the appellant/complainant was asked to sign and submit the discharge –cum-surrender of policy form, which was printed at the lower end of the letter dated 23.06.2011, up to 22.07.2011, but he failed to do so. Hence, the same could not be considered and the appellant/complainant was again asked to apply for fresh surrender with the fresh request. With these submissions, the Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties, prayed for the dismissal of appeal. 11. The perusal of record, reveals that the appellant/complainant, had written many letters, to the respondents/opposite parties for paying him the surrender value of the policy in question. He, however, failed to fill, sign and submit the discharge-cum-surrender of policy form, up to 22.07.2011, as is evident from the letter dated 23.06.2011, at running Page No.83 of the complaint file. He himself was at fault by not submitting the discharge-cum-surrender of policy form to the respondents/opposite parties upto 22.07.2011, in order to get the surrender value of the said policy. Furthermore, this fact also stands established from the letter dated 08.08.2011, at running Page No.79 of the complaint file, written by the appellant/complainant to the respondents/opposite parties, wherein, he specifically stated that the quoted expiry date of 22.07.2011, could not be utilized by him, due to certain reasons. Therefore, in our view, the appellant/complainant, being himself at fault, could not be heard to say that he suffered immense physical harassment and mental agony, at the hands of the opposite parties. For his own fault, he could not claim compensation and interest. The order of the District Forum is, thus, legal and valid. 12. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed, being devoid of merit, with no orders as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 14. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Pronounced. 20th July, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.140 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Harsh Manocha, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents. Dated the 20th day of July, 2012 ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal has been dismissed, with no orders as to costs, as per directions. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
