Haryana

StateCommission

A/467/2016

PREM SAGAR GRG - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC STD.LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      467 of 2016

Date of Institution:      24.05.2016

Date of Decision :       23.01.2017

 

Prem Sagar Garg s/o late Shri Rameshwar Dass Garg, 7 KM Stone Chhachhrauli Road, VPO Udhamgarh, Jagadhri-135003, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th & 13^th Floor Lodha Excells, Apollo Mill Compound, MM Joshi Marg Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011.

2.      The Branch Manager HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited, near Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar-135001.

3.      HDFC Bank Limited near Nirankari Bhavan, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar-135001.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                  

Argued by:          Shri Prem Sagar Garg-appellant in person.

Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

None for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

           This appeal of complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated April 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short ‘the District Forum’).

2.                Prem Sagar Garg-complainant (appellant herein) submitted a proposal form to obtain a unit linked single premium policy (Annexure-A) of Rs.2.00 lacs from from HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for his daughter Ms. Divya Sipani. He paid the first premium of Rs.2.00 lacs vide cheque dated 16.07.2011. It was alleged that the Insurance Company instead of issuing single premium policy, issued a Multi premium policy for ten years for Rs.20.00 lacs.

3.                In the month of July/August, 2013, when the Insurance Company asked the complainant to pay the renewal premium, the complainant came to know about the fraud committed with him. So, instead of continuing the above said policy, the complainant sought refund of the premium amount alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment of premium till the date of refund; Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for mental agony/harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite parties contested complaint by filing written version. The opposite parties in their joint written version stated that the complaint was not maintainable as the policy holder requested for cancellation of the policy and the same was accepted by the opposite parties and the amount was paid by the opposite parties vide cheque No.315611 dated 18.04.2013. The insured was informed about the payment of future premium. However, the policy holder did not continue with the policy. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the opposite parties as under:-

“…we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the Ops No.1 & 2 to pay interest on the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 16.7.2011 till its realization i.e. 27.4.2013 within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the accrued interest for the defaulting period and further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.”

6.                Aggrieved complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation stating that he be granted relief as prayed for in the complaint. In support, reference was made to a news item (printed paper) alleging it to be a newspaper cutting whereby District Forum, Mumbai  held the Insurance Company negligent in issuing a wrong policy and directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.45,000/- compensation.

7.                The alleged newspaper cutting cannot be treated a precedent. Besides that it has no binding effect. Facts of each case are different. Moreover, in the case in hand the Insurance Company itself refunded the amount on the request of the complainant seeking cancellation of the policy. In view of this, there is hardly any ground to grant more compensation to the complainant as the complainant has already been granted adequate compensation by the District Forum.

8.                Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                                                                                                                                                      

Announced: 23.01.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL