BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.291/12.

Date of instt.: 04.12.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014.  

Kirti Mohan Gupta S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Gupta, r/o Ward No.14, near Post Office, Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Ambala Road, Kaithal.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, Narayan Plaza, SCO No.778-789, Kunjpura Road, Opp. Mahavir Dal, Karnal.

3. Vinod Singla, Business Development Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Bakshi, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.

Op No.3 already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  It is further alleged that on 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after hearing the contents of the said policy found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested many times to cancel the said policy but the Ops did not do so.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.02.2013.  Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant is alleging that she went to some Mr. Ram Dhiman for submitting the application for cancellation but he has not made Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to this complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 05.07.2012, the complainant purchased a HDFC children double benefit plan from Op No.3, who is authorized business development manager of Op No.1, and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as premium in cash to Op No.3 and in lieu thereof  the Op No.1 issued a policy bearing No.15297716 on 17.07.2012 in favour of complainant.  On 08.08.2012, Op No.3 handed over the above-said policy to the complainant and got read over the contents of the policy to the complainant.  After hearing the contents of the said policy, it was found that the terms and condition were not correct as told by Op No.3.  The Ops contends that before issuance of the policy, the complainant was given all the illustrations which contain the features and benefits of the policy to be issued.  The said illustrations were read and understood by the complainant and thereafter, he has signed in agreement to this.  It was only after he has signed and agreed to the illustrations the policy was issued.  The complainant has never submitted any application to get the policy cancelled to Op No.1.  The Op No.1 does not have any branch in Kaithal and the address of Op No.1 is also wrong.  The particular of Op No.1 is purposely mentioned wrong by the complainant in order to keep this Forum in dark.  The complainant has also not made the said Mr. Ram Dhiman a party to the present complaint.  This further strengthens the doubt that the complainant wants to keep this Forum in dark.  Whereas, the true fact is that the complainant for the first time gave them an application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 and the same was received by them on 04.09.2012.  A copy of said application for surrender of policy dt. 27.08.2012 received by them on 04.09.2012 (Annexure R03).  In the said letter, there is no mention of any letter of request for cancellation give prior to 27.08.2012, therefore, it can be easily concluded that the said application is first application.  We find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops.  There is no momentum of force in the submission of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. 23.12.2014.  

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.