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

========

Dr.Preetkanwal Shergill d/o K.S.Shergill, r/o H.No.233, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh through her father and General Power of Attorney holder Sh.K.S.Shergill r/o H.No.233, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant[s]

                 V E R S U S

[1] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 5^th Floor, Eureka Towers, Mindspace Complex, Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai through its CEO /M.D.

[2] HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor, SCO 139-140, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

[3] Sh.Varun Sharma, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor, SCO 139-140, 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: Ms.Meena Bansal, Counsel for complainant

           Sh.Nitin Thatai, Counsel for OPs.   

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that on 22.01.2010, the complainant gave two cheques for Rs.5 lacs to OP-3 for investment.   The complainant averred that she was assured by OP-3 that after the investment of Rs.5 lacs after every year for the period of three years i.e. Rs.15 lacs, she would get Rs.19,15,376/-. The complainant alleged that on 22.01.2010, the OP-3 got signed the blank application form (Annexure C-3) from the complainant and filled up wrong entries  as under:-

i)      The resident status of the complainant was shown as Indian whereas complainant was an American Citizen (NRI) and OCI (Overseas Citizen of India).

ii)    The martial status of the complainant was shown as married as well divorced whereas complainant was divorce.

iii)  The birth place of the complainant was shown as Chandigarh whereas the birth place of the complainant was Military Based hospital Pathankot Distt. Gurdaspur.

         According to the complainant, OP-3 invested Rs.1.35 lacs and Rs. 3.15 lacs in the Unit Linked Pension Plan of HDFC Standard Life and the value of the above said amount shown as Rs.1,33,438.45 + Rs.3,11,356.40 = Rs.4,44,794.85 in the unit statement for the period                 from 23.01.2010 to 26.01.2010 (Annexure C-6).     On 23.01.2010, the OP-1 issued the HDFC Pension super Plan bearing policy No.13406477 commenced from 23.01.2010. Thereafter, the complainant informed the OPs No.1 and 2  regarding the wrong entries made in her application form and OP-1 made confirmation of the change of her address vide letter dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure C-7). Thereafter, the complainant lodged a protest regarding the investment of Rs.4.50 lacs instead of Rs.5 lacs and also enquired about the surrender charges, frequency of charges etc. The complainant alleged that she was told that she would get more than 17% interest and OPs have kept 5/10% her money to be paid after 3 years. Under the compelled circumstances, she approached the Insurance Ombudsman who ordered to refund the premium of the policy and the OPs refunded the amount of Rs.5 lacs vide cheque No.217942 which she received under protest. The grouse of the complainant is that OPs refunded the amount of Rs.5 lacs, without the interest for the period from 22.01.2010 to 01.02.2011, which amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

[2]      OPs No.1 and 2 filed their written statement. The averments with regard to the investment of Rs.4.50 lacs instead of Rs.5 lacs in the unit linked plan and issuance of policy in question have been admitted by the Ops. However, it has been pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the nature of the product i.e. Unit Linked Plan, therefore, the allocation rate as mentioned under the policy and the illustration for the first year of the commencement was 90% which comes to Rs.4.50 lacs and accordingly the units of Rs.4.50 lacs were allocated to the complainant. It has been pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have already refunded the amount of Rs.5 lacs as per the order of the Insurance Ombudsman vide cheque No.217942 dated 25.01.2011. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

[3]      In his separate written statement, OP-3 pleaded that the payment of Rs.5 lacs was made to HDFC standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. out of which the commission was paid to the concerned financial consultant/agent and the amount of Rs.4.50 lacs was invested by the company as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It has been pleaded that the alleged calculation (Annexure C-2) is neither in the handwriting of the replying OP, nor it has been written at the instance of replying OP. OP-3 took almost the identical objections as taken by the OPs No.1 and 2. All other averments made in the complaint were denied. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on his part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

[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 challenge in the present complaint is whether the impugned action of the OPs in investing Rs.4.50 lacs, instead of Rs.5.00 lacs, deposited by the Complainant, and refunding only Rs.5.00 lacs, that too with the intervention of the Insurance Ombudsman, without any interest, for the period from 22.01.2010 to 1.02.2011 the amount remained deposited with them, is legal and justified. The answer to this is in the affirmative.  

[7]      The Complainant has alleged in the complaint that the contents/ terms & conditions of the policy were not read over to her. She being an educated lady and a doctor by profession, is not expected to sign on the dotted lines. Rather, she should have signed the same, after going through the entire documents. This being so, this plea raised by the Complainant, at this stage, does not hold any water and is not tenable. It is further the allegation of the Complainant that her particulars qua Annexure C-3/D-2 were wrongly mentioned. Since, the Complainant is a signatory of this document; therefore, she is stopped to raise such a plea.

[8]      Undisputedly, after duly deliberating and understanding, all the terms and conditions of the “Unit Linked Pension Plan”, Complainant filled and signed a Proposal Form dated 22.01.2010, copy of which is at Annexure C-1. A perusal of the same would show that the Complainant offered to pay a premium of Rs.5,00,000/- for a term of 10 years (yearly). It was based on the declaration made and information provided in the Proposal Form, a Policy was issued to the Complainant having commencement dated as 23.01.2010.

[9]      The Complainant has not disputed the receipt of standard terms and conditions along with the Policy Schedule and a welcome letter dated 26.01.2010 (on the reverse of Annexure C-4). In the said letter, it was clearly spelt out that in case the Complainant was dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she can cancel the same by returning the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same.     

[10]     The case of the Complainant is two folds. Firstly, her contention was that she was made to understand that after the investment of Rs.5,00,000/- every year for the period of three years, she would get Rs.19,15,376/- against the total investment of Rs.15,00,000/-. To reinforce this, she placed her sole reliance on Annexure   C-2, which is a handwritten paper, allegedly written by OP No.3. We do not find any merit in this argument, simple for the reason that the said alleged calculation is neither on the letter head of the OPs, nor there are signatures of any of the financial consultants of OP- Insurance Company. As such, the plea raised by the Complainant that she was promised that she would get Rs.19,15,376/- at the end of three years does not have any legs to stand. Secondly, she contended that out of Rs.5,00,000/- deposited by her, OPs only invested Rs.4.50 lacs, without any rhyme & reasons. We do not find any infirmity in the said action of the OPs, because, the nature of the product was Unit Linked Plan and the allocation rate under the Policy for the first year of the commencement was 90%. The first premium paid by the Complainant at the time of inception of policy was Rs.5,00,000/- and 90% of Rs.5,00,000/- comes out to be Rs.4,50,000/-. As such, units to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- was allocated to the Complainant, as shown in the unit statement. Furthermore, as per the order dated 10.03.2011, passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh, the OPs refunded the amount of premium deposited by the Complainant i.e. Rs.5,00,000/-, vide Cheque No. 217942, dated 25.01.2011 vide Annexure C-13.   

[11]     Moreover, the Complainant, who was at liberty and obligation to go through the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy documents, did not raise any complaints/ objections regarding the policy either within the free look period of 15 days or within any reasonable time thereafter. Thus, the contract of insurance attained finality and the OPs have been continuing to provide coverage to the Complainant. After the expiry of the free look period, the policy terms and conditions permits surrender of the policy only after completion of 3 years; where surrender value as payable in accordance with the policy terms and conditions shall be payable on surrender of the policy. It is not the case of the Complainant that she did not receive the policy documents, containing the term and conditions of the policy and that she opted for the refund within the free look period of 15 days, which option was duly conveyed to her, as stated above, but she utterly failed to exercise the said option.

[12]     In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, 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.

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