Delhi

East Delhi

CC/462/2014

NARENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STANDRAD LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 462/14

Shri.  NARENDER SINGH

S/O Shri. OM PRAKASH

R/O 2/483, LINE PAAR, NEW PATEL PARK,

1.  

DISTT. JHAJJAR, HARYANA                                                                     ….Complainant

•  

 

1. M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

MAYUR VIHAR BRANCH, PLOT NO. 1A FIRST FLOOR, STAR CITY MALL,

MAYUR PALACE, DISTT CENTER PHASE 1, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91

 

2. Mr. RAHUL SHARMA

MAYUR VIHAR BRANCH, PLOT NO. 1A FIRST FLOOR, STAR CITY MALL,

MAYUR PALACE, DISTT CENTER PHASE 1, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91

 

3. Mr. VIKAS MISHRA

MAYUR VIHAR BRANCH, PLOT NO. 1A FIRST FLOOR, STAR CITY MALL,

MAYUR PALACE, DISTT CENTER PHASE 1, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91

4. Mr. ALOK

MAYUR VIHAR BRANCH, PLOT NO. 1A FIRST FLOOR, STAR CITY MALL,

MAYUR PALACE, DISTT CENTER PHASE 1, MAYUR VIHAR, DELHI-91

                                                                                                                         ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 16.05.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 25.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 25.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by          Shri Narender Singh against M/S HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. (OP-1), Mr. Rahul Sharma (OP-2), Mr. Vikas Mishra (OP-3) and Mr. Alok (OP-4), praying for directions to OPs to provide the promised Tour Vouchers and Air Tickets, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant has been maintaining his salary account with HDFC Bank for the past seven years. In the month of June/July 2013, he got the call from OP-2 (Mr. Rahul Sharma) who promised to give silver coin, one tour voucher of two days three nights, free stay in any of the five star Hotel in India and four return Air Tickets ( 2 adults 2 children), if the complainant purchased HDFC Life Insurance Policy. Complainant was asked to submit some documents and after the submission, policy no. 16146680 was issued to the complainant, but the complainant surrendered the same within free look period.  The complainant received another call from OP-3 (Mr. Vikas Mishra), enquiring about reason for cancelling the policy. OP-3 confirmed that OP-2 had made wrong promises and internal action has been initiated against him. It is further stated that the complainant in good faith revived his policy with OP and was further offered that if the complainant took policy worth Rs.30,000/-, he will get two tour vouchers. The said vouchers bearing no. 200192 and 200193 of India Infoline were handed over to the complainant. The complainant received verification call from HDFC and he confirmed the details. The complainant tried to book Hotel by using vouchers delivered to him, where he received the reply from India Infoline stating that they did not have any tie up with HDFC. The complainant was again assured by OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 regarding redemption of vouchers. On the assurance of OP-4, the complainant decided a tour programme of Manali, but the said vouchers could not be redeemed as there was no booking available. Despite follow up with Branch Office of HDFC, the grievance of the complainant was not addressed. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint for seeking direction to OP to provide the promised Tour Vouchers and Air Tickets, pay a Sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the petition.
3. The complainant has annexed holiday entitlement vouchers as annexure-1       E-mail dated 25/09/2013, 24/09/2013 annexure-2 and first premium receipt along with complaint.
4. Notice of the present complaint was served upon the OPs after which reply was filed by OP-1, where they took the plea that the complainant was bound by the terms and condition and was aware of free look period of the policy in question as it was second policy. It was stated that the complainant had surrendered his earlier policy no. 16146680. It was also stated that the complainant had not alleged any deficiency in service in respect of insurance policy. It was also denied that OP-1 had promised the complainant about any scheme of issuance of travel vouchers in issuance of policy. It was further submitted that the policy of the complainant has got lapsed on account of nonpayment of premium. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief and hence prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement on behalf of OP-1 was filed by the complainant, where all the contents of the complaint were reiterated and those of the written statement were denied.
6. Complainant examined Shri Narender Singh, who stated all the contents of the complaint on affidavit and relied on the annexures, annexed with the complaint.
7. Shri Akash Singh (Assistant Manager HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company) was examined on behalf of OP-1, who reiterated the contents of the written statement and relied on letter of authority Ex. OP-1/1, proposal forms for policy no. 16146680 and 16248030 as Ex. OP-1/2.
8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the OP-1 and have perused the material on record. The complainant has alleged that he was lured by OP2 to OP-4 by promising travel vouchers. However Ex.OP-1/2 is a proposal forms which bears the signature of the complainant, this implies that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions and when the complainant has exercised option of cancellation in the free look period with respect to policy no. 16146680, then he had an option of exercising the same with respect to policy no. 16248030. Being so, as the complainant has failed to exercise the option, he cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and at the same time he also had the insurance cover for the same period. As for as allegations against OP-2 to OP-4 are concerned, the complainant has not placed anything on record to substantiate his allegations. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed.

There is no order as to cost. 

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                 MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT