BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 426 of 2010

Date of Institution :  13.07.2010

Date of  Decision   :  05.07.2011

Deep Singh s/o Sh. Inderjit Singh, r/o # 1208, Sec.15-B, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., 201, 2^nd Floor, Palai Palaza, Opp. Pritam Hostel, Dadar (East), Mumbai 400014.

[2]  HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 139-140 (Ground Floor), Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                         PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL               MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA        MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Dharam Chand Mittal, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.

PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT

           Briefly stated, the Complainant on the inducement of official of the OPs invested Rs.99,999/- as one time investment with the OPs vide Policy dated 19.07.2008. But contrary to it, when he received the Policy, he came to know that he was to deposit a sum of Rs.99,999/-, on annual basis, which was out of his reach. So, he, immediately, approached the OPs and brought in their notice that though it has been mentioned in the policy that amount is to be deposited every year, but he can withdraw the initially invested amount with accrued benefits after three years, per assurance given by the official of OPs. But to the utter surprise of the Complainant, a letter dated 16.7.2009 was received, whereby, he was asked to deposit amount of premium, failing which the policy shall stand lapsed. The Complainant approached the OPs and sought reasons for the same, but to no avail. Ultimately, the Complainant, vide letter dated 12.1.2010 sought refund of the amount from OPs deposited on 16.7.2008. In response to that OP again asked him to deposit the premium due on 16.7.2009, failing which the amount deposited would be forfeited. Hence, this complaint.  

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OPs filed reply. While admitting the factual matrix of the case, it was pleaded that the Complainant had availed the policy in question, so he was required to pay an annual premium. As per term and conditions of the said policy, in case of failure to pay the installment annually, the policy shall stand lapsed, which fact was within the knowledge of Complainant. But he chose not to pay the yearly premiums. It was also pleaded that the Complainant failed to exercise the option to free lock-in-period, whereby if he finds any discrepancy in the policy documents, he could return the policy documents to the OP. However, the Complainant did not avail the free lock-in-period option to cancel the policy in question. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]         The case of the Complainant is that on the inducement of the officials of the OPs, he invested Rs.99,999/- as one time investment with the OPs. But contrary to it, when he received the Policy, it came to light that he was to deposit a sum of Rs.99,999/- on annual basis. He brought the said fact to the notice of the OPs, who in turn told that he can withdraw the initially invested amount with accrued benefits after three years.

7]         It is the grouse of the Complainant that he received letter dated 16.7.2009, whereby he was asked to deposit amount of premium, failing which the Policy shall stand lapsed. The Complainant sought refund of the amount vide letter dated 12.1.2010 and in response to it, he was asked to deposit the premium due on 16.7.2009.

8]         The OPs have raised the plea that the Complainant was required to pay the annual premium as per the terms and conditions of the policy, failing which, the policy shall stand lapsed. The Complainant did not pay the yearly premiums, nor exercise the option to cancel the policy within the free lock-in-period. 

9]         Annexure C-1 is the Policy and on the top of it, it has been written “HDFC Savings Assurance Policy”. The term of the policy is 10 years and an amount of Rs.99,999/- is payable annually from the date of commencement. The Complainant has not produced any evidence on the file to prove that he purchased one time policy on the inducement of the officials of the OPs. Since the policy in question is a “Savings Assurance Policy”, therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the Complainant to say that he purchased one time investment policy from the OPs on 19.07.2008.  

10]        Clause 3 of the Standard Policy Provisions, attached with the Policy, at page 15 and 16, makes it clear that if any premium remains unpaid for 15 days after the due date, the policy shall stand lapsed with effect from the due date of the first unpaid premium and the policy holder may acquire a surrender value. If the policy continues for a period of three years, the policy will acquire a guaranteed minimum surrender value. Annexure C-3 is a letter dated 12.1.2010, written by the Complainant to the Branch Manager of the OP – Insurance Co., wherein it is stated that he is not interested in the policy, as he cannot deposit the amount, therefore the amount be returned to him. 

11]        Admittedly, the policy in question was issued on 19.7.2008 and letter (Annexure C-3), referred to above, is dated 12.1.2010. Therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the policy did not continue for a period of 03 years. As such, the Complainant is not entitled for a guaranteed minimum surrender value, pr clause 3 of the Standard Policy Provisions, referred to above.

12]        The Policy (Annexure C-1), along with Standard Policy Provisions had been produced by the Complainant, therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that he was in the knowledge of the terms & conditions of the Policy. It will not be out of place to mention that the Complainant was also in the know that in case of failure to pay the premiums, the policy shall stand lapsed. But despite of that, he did not pay the yearly premium, nor exercised the option to cancel the policy within the free lock-in-period.   

13]        In view of the above discussion, in our considered onion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and, therefore, the same cannot be accepted in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. There is neither any deficiency of service, nor indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, we dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

14]        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.