Delhi

East Delhi

CC/252/2014

RATIKANT PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STANDRAD LIFE - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2016

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. 252/14

 

Shri Ratikant Prasad

R-50, 3^rd Floor, Manglam Building

Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092                                ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Branch Manager

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

F-40, 2^nd Floor, Street No. 12

Laxmi Nagar, Dlhi – 110 092

 

2. HDFC Standard Life Insruance Co. Ltd.

11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound

N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011      ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 15.04.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 11.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 19.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ravikant Prasad against The Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.   (OP-1) and  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in services.

2.        The facts in brief are that in the month of February 2012, an agent of OP convinced the complainant to purchase policies by paying one time premium for which Rs. 5,16,243/- were given by way of cheque.  Neither any policy bond was issued nor any receipt was issued.  It is further stated that the complainant was made to sign on unfilled proposal form.  As the policy bonds were not issued, the complainant made efforts to know the status, where he came to know that the policies issued to him were not one-time premium policies.  Thereafter, the complainant through letter wrongly dated as 12.02.2012 (instead of 12.02.2013) received by OP on 12.02.2013, requested OP to cancel all the policies and refund the amount which complainant had already deposited.  OP acknowledged the receipt of the complaint vide letters dated 13.02.2013.

            Written complaint dated 12.02.2012, bearing stamp of OP 12.02.2013, letters of acknowledgement dated 13.02.2013 are annexed with the complaint.

3.        OP was served with the notice of the complaint and reply was filed by OP-1, where they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation with respect to two policies.  It was also stated that all the policy documents were delivered to the complainant, who did not exercise option available under freelook period.  The policies of the complainant had lapsed due to non-payment of premium and rest of the contents of the complaint were denied. 

            Authority letter in favour of Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Zonal Manager is annexed as Annex. OP1, proposal form and policy documents are annexed as Annex OP2 and OP-3 (colly.).

4.        Rejoinder to OP-1’s WS was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the WS were denied.  It was submitted that the complainant had not signed any of the proposal form.

5.        Affidavit as evidence was filed by both the parties, wherein the complainant examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and rejoinder.  OP examined Shri Akash Singh, Associate Legal Manager of OP, who deposed on oath the contents of WS and relied on letter of authority (Ex. OP1), policies and related documents (Ex. OP2) (colly.) and reply to complainants letter (Ex. OP3).

6.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has stated that he had paid Rs. 5,16,243/- by cheque for payment of policies, but has not disclosed the breakup of the said amount, as to how many cheques, he had issued.  Further, the complainant has taken a contradictory stand in his complaint, rejoinder as well as evidence. 

On one hand, he has stated that he had signed unfilled documents/proposal forms and on the other hand, has denied signing any proposal form in the rejoinder.  Further, OP has stated that the policy documents were duly delivered to the complainant, but no document pertaining to the proof of delivery was placed on record.  The delivery of policy bond to the complaint remains a disputed question of fact.  As the disputed question of facts needs trial, they cannot be adjudicated by this forum in summary proceedings.

Hence, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to file before appropriate forum/court.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President