Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/04

KAMLESH KUMAR DUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STANDRAD LIC - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 04 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 04.12.2014 passed in C.C.No.20/2014 by District Commission, Sagar)

 

KAMLESH KUMAR DUBEY,

S/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL DUBEY,

R/O 114/2, BASANT VIHAR COLONY,

TILI ROAD, SAGAR (M.P.)                                                                                          … APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD

    11A, FLOOR, LODHI AMCILUS, APPOLO MILL COMPOUND,

    N.M.JOSHI ROAD, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400 011

 

2. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,

    CUSTOMER RELATION, HDFC SL INDORE

    VIJAY NAGAR, BRANCH IVTH FLOOR, ORBIT MALL,

    VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE-452010

 

3. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    GUJRATI BAZAR, SAGAR (M.P.)

 

4. HDFC

    FIRST FLOOR, BHOPAL PLAZA,

    NEAR BHOPAL TALKIES, HAMIDIA ROAD,

    BHOPAL-462001                                                                                       … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                          :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 12.10.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) arises out of the order dated 04.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short

-2-

‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.20/2014, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant on 24.07.2009 had obtained a ‘Unit Link Youngster Plus-II’ policy no.13008664, of which yearly premium was Rs.20,000/-. The appellant deposited Rs.60,000/- for a period of three years. The opposite parties/respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) assured that after five years, the appellant can get the policy amount in cash. The respondents telephonically asked him to deposit the fourth instalment and he sent a cheque no.0562396 dated 31.08.2012 to the respondents. After receiving the amount of cheque, the respondents did not deposit the same as fourth premium towards policy no.13008664 and instead issued a fresh policy 15458241 on 08.10.2012, after making forged signatures of the appellant. In the said policy, the address of the appellant’s wife, as a nominee was shown as Selam, Tamilnadu. He therefore made a complaint to the respondent no.3, who assured to rectify the same from the head office. It is submitted that he also made online complaints on the website of respondents. But neither the policy was cancelled nor the amount of Rs.20,200/- was returned. Despite notice dated 02.09.2013, the respondents did not take any action. The appellant therefore filed a complaint seeking cancellation of policy no.15458241, refund of Rs.20,200/- with interest, Rs.20,000/- as

-3-

compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for financial losses, therefore a sum total of Rs.60,200/-.

3.                The respondents by filing a joint reply admitted issuance of policy no. 13008664 and deposition of Rs.60,000/-. Rest of the allegations were denied. It is submitted that the respondents never informed telephonically to deposit the fourth premium, instead the appellant was interested in taking second policy and for that he had given a cheque for a sum of Rs.20,200/-. On that basis, the policy in question was issued. If there was error or discrepancy and the appellant did not intend to take the policy, he could have challenged the same within a free-look period.  The appellant did not take any action within said period. With the consent of the appellant, the policy in question was issued on 08.10.2012 in his name. Proposal form and documents are sent along with the policy to the policy holder, so that if there is any discrepancy, the applicant can file an application within free-look period. The respondents did not commit any fraud or deficiency in service with the appellant and he is not entitled to any compensation. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant has failed to prove deficiency in service on respondents’ part.

5.                Heard. 

 

-4-

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has not considered the important aspect that the respondents did not deposit the fourth premium towards the earlier policy and had issued a fresh policy whereas, the appellant had never asked for issuance of fresh policy, nor he had given any consent in that regard. There is no signature of the appellant in the proposal form sent along with the second policy as also the address of his wife (nominee) is wrongly mentioned. The District Commission without going through the documents properly, has passed an erroneous order.    It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondents argued that at the instance of the appellant, the second policy was issued. The appellant did not call in question the second policy within a free-look period. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents fraudulently issued the second policy. He argued that the District Commission after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly dismissed the complaint.  

8.                The appellant has alleged that the respondents intentionally did not deposit the fourth premium towards earlier policy, but had issued a new policy without his consent and without obtaining his signatures on the proposal form. Exhibit C-7, placed on record by the complainant is a letter dated 08.10.2012 from the respondents regarding the policy in question

-5-

specifying the free-look period as 30 days. If the appellant had any query against the said policy or was not satisfied with the said policy, he could have challenged the same within free look period of 30 days, but he failed to do so. The documents on record fail to substantiate the appellant’s allegations against the respondents.

9.                In view of the above, it cannot be held that the respondents had intentionally and unilaterally issued the second policy and while doing so had committed deficiency in service.

10.              Accordingly, we conclude that the District Commission has committed no error or irregularity in passing the impugned order.

11.              The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (D. K. SHRIVASTAVA) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                  PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                    MEMBER