DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.129 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 27.04.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 26.04.2016
Ajay Kumar son of Late Shri Des Raj, resident of House No. 489, Ward No. 21, Bank Colony, Near Senior Activity School, Hansi.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor City Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Branch Office, HDFC SL Rohtak Branch 1st Floor, Above Herohonda Showroom, Shakuntla Building Main Delhi Rohtak Road, Rohtak.
- Mr. Vikaram Munjal, Asstt. Sales Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2nd Floor City Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani (given up vide order dated 29.05.2015).
…….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Bhuvnesh Makhija, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Anil Khurana, Advocate for respondent no. 1 & 2.
OP no. 3 given up.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had obtained a life insurance policy bearing no. 14383285 vide proposal dated 29th April, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 1,27,605/- being the installment amount of Rs. 10,000/- and final premium due date 29.04.2017 & Mrs. Sonia Arora was appointed as nominee. It is alleged that the date of commencement of the above said policy was 29.04.2011 and the complainant deposited one installment for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Ops. It is alleged that the respondents company appreciate the other plan to the complainant but intentionally and deliberately issued and invested the other plan named as “HDFCSL CLASSIC ASSURE PLAN” only to grab heavy commission which was not proper. The complainant requested the Ops to issue the policy bond several times but they pretext the matter one to another. The complainant visited the office of Ops and given written letters on several dates for changing the plan but they did not do so. The complainant had got issued a legal notice but reply was not given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant in the month of April 2011 had shown his desire to purchase a life insurance policy for his own life and upon the same. It is submitted that the officials of the respondent had appraised the complainant about various plans of the respondent company and the complainant after going through the brochures of the various life insurance policies of the respondent company, had gave his consent to 10,000/- and had choose HDFCSL Classic Assure Plan amount the various plans of the respondent company and had submitted the duly filled proposal form looking into his financial capacity and after attaining the entire satisfaction. It is submitted that upon the request of the complainant, the respondent had issued one life insurance policy bearing no. 14383285 as applied by the complainant on dated 29.04.2011. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy bond, if the life assured is dissatisfied with any of the terms and conditions of the policy bond, then he can rescind the contract within a free look period of 15 days by surrendering the original policy bond but in the instant case, the complainant never had approached the respondent within a free look period nor had surrendered the policy and had availed the benefits of the policy. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 3 had given up vide order dated 29.05.2015.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 alongwith affidavit Mark A.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 alongwith affidavit Annexure RW1/A.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. The complainant has alleged that he had obtained a life insurance policy vide proposal dated 29.04.2011 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,27,605/- and paid a first premium of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant received the policy bond on 25.10.2012 and he came to know that the Ops have changed the plan, it is not the plan for which he has applied and the complainant written the letters dated 20.02.2013 and 29.04.2013 to the Ops to change the plan.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the complainant had given his consent to purchase one life insurance policy on an yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- and had chosen HDFCSL Classic Assure Plan. If the complainant was dissatisfied with the policy in question then he can rescind the contract within a free look period of 15 days by surrendering the original policy bond but the complainant never approached the respondent within a free look period of 15 days nor surrender the original policy. The complainant had availed the benefits of policy and having enjoyed the benefit of the coverage thereof. After the lapse of about 4 years the complainant has approached this District Forum on the false allegations. The complaint of the complainant is time barred.
9. In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record carefully. As per the contention of the complainant he wrote letter dated 20.02.2013 Annexure C-1 and letter dated 29.04.2013 Annexure C-2 to the Ops regarding the change of the plan. From the perusal of the said letters, we found there is no mention of even a single word by the complainant regarding the non-receipt of the policy bonds for about one and half years. The complainant has merely written to the Ops regarding the change of the plan. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention that he received the policy bond on 25.10.2012. Had the complainant would have not received the policy bond within the stipulated period then he must have written to the Ops because the complainant since 20.02.2013 is regularly writing the letters to the Ops so he is aware of making correspondence with the Ops. The complainant himself has produced the policy dated 06.05.2011 as Annexure C-9 alongwith the proposal form which is for the HDFCSL Classic Assure Plan.
10. As per the allegations of the complainant, he received the policy bond on 25.10.2012 and the present complaint has been filed by him on 27.04.2015 beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 2 years as envisaged under Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of our discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:26.04.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
