Balraj Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the HDFC Standard Life Ins. Co. Ltd, and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is maintaining his saving Account No.06411000131709 with the Opp.No.3. It is alleged that in the month of July 2011, he approached Opp.No.3 for depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in shape of Fixed Deposit. But the Opp.No.3 for his own vested interest, instead of depositing the above mentioned amount in shape of Fixed Deposit, deposited the above mentioned amount with the Opp.No.1 and 2 in shape of HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium - Policy Schedule, date of commencement of Policy 26th July 2011 without informing him and without his consent. It is further alleged that he was not aware about the fact that the Opp.No.3 instead of depositing the above mentioned amount in shape of FDR has invested the name in the above mentioned policy. Infact, he opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in shape of Fixed Deposit so that he may earn some interest from fixed deposit. It is further alleged that after a long time when he received the documents regarding the above mentioned Insurance Plan from the Opp.No.1 and 2, he approached the Opp.No.3 in order to inquire about the true facts. But the Opp.No.3 allured him that he will receive handsome interest in this scheme and he will also be entitled to get the amount of policy along with interest after 5 years and advised to get the same encashed after 5 years. He came into talks of the manager of Opp.No.3 Bank. It is further alleged that after completion of 5 years, when he again approached the Opp.No.3 for getting the policy encashed, he was told that the same cannot be encashed as the same has been issued under scheme of HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium vide Policy No. 14517095and the complainant shall have to pay more premiums for the same. Only then he was stunned that he has been kept in dark by the opposite parties in connivance with each other for wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to him. It is further alleged that he is not in a position to make payment of further installments of the above mentioned policy. Moreover, he never opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in the above said policy. Therefore, he approached the opposite parties many time and again with a request to cancel the above mentioned Policy and to credit amount in question in his account along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due till actual realization, but the opposite parties always put him with one or the other excuse. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered physical, mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to cancel the above mentioned policy and to make the payment of entire amount along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of deposit, till actual payment. Besides the amount of policy in question, the complainant may also be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In their joint written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the Opp. Parties No.1&2 and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the Opp. Parties No.1 &2. It is pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation. The policy was issued in the year 2011 and the present complaint has been filed after a lapse of 10 years and as such the complaint is not within limitation. Even on 08.04.2016 the complainant sent letter to the insurance company for cancellation of the policy. The said complaint has been duly replied by the company vide letter dated 15-April-2016 and it has been clearly mentioned that now the policy cannot be cancelled. Even the period of more than 6 years has been passed from the said date. As the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is further pleaded that the policy along with its terms and conditions has been issued on the basis of proposal form duly signed and submitted by the complainant and the features of policy also duly explained to the complainant and the said document also duly signed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that even in the year 2013 the complainant applied for getting duplicate policy and submitted indemnity bond and on this the copy of policy and its terms and conditions again duly provided and the policy clearly provides Free Look period but the option not avail at that time. Now the complainant is making false excuses. It is further pleaded that the complainant in the present complaint is leveling false allegations of mis-selling and said complex question cannot be decided in a summary manner and on this ground also, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          On merits, the opposite parties 1 & 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Opposite Party No.3 did not appear and despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte wide order date 17.11.2022.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Balraj Singh (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A along-with other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

6.       Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 &2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, Authorized Signatory, HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd, Chandigarh as Ex.OPW-1/A along-with other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.

7.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is maintaining his saving account no.06411000131709 with opposite party No.3 and in July, 2011 the complainant had deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the Fixed Deposit but opposite party No.3 instead of depositing the same in the shape of FDR invested the said amount in HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium with date of commencement as 26.07.2011. However, after coming to know about said Plan complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 to enquire about the same but opposite party No.3 allured the complainant that he will receive handsome interest if the complainant get the policy encashed after 5 years. After 5 years when complainant again approached opposite party No.3, it was disclosed that same cannot be encashed and complainant is required to pay more premium. The complainant thereafter wrote letters Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 for cancellation of policy and refund of the amount but the opposite parties failed to refund the amount which amounts to deficiency in service.

10.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 has argued that policy was issued in 2011 and present complaint has been filed after the delay of 10 years and letters written to the opposite parties by the complainant are of the year 2016 and as such the complaint filed by the complainant is mercilessly time barred.

11.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that opposite parties no.1 and 2 had sold the policy of insurance to the complainant on 27.07.2011 by receiving premium amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The policy of insurance Ex.C4 was issued to the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the policy Free Look Period of 15 days is provided to the complainant to return the said policy if the terms and conditions are not acceptable to the complainant but perusal of file and documents shows that after the year 2011 for the first time complainant had approached the opposite parties on 08.04.2016 vide Ex.OP-1 when the policy had already lapsed on account of non deposit of premium and present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 23.09.2022 after 10 years. As such we are of view that since the limitation prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is two years. As such complaint filed by the complainant is mercilessly time barred and as such without going into the merit of the case the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                       President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 08, 2023                                               Member

*YP*