Delhi

East Delhi

CC/8/2014

MUKESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 08/14

 

Shri Mukesh Kumar

R/o 1167, Mandoli Ext.

Delhi – 110 093                                                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

1. HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd.

5^th Floor, Eurreka Towers

Mindspace Complex

Link Road, Malad (West)

Mumbai – 400 064

 

2. HDFC Bank Limited

GF-01,02,03, Laxmi Deep Building

Laxmi Nagar Dist. Nagar

Vikas Marg, New Delhi – 110 092                                    …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 02.01.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 10.04.2018

Judgement Passed on: 11.04.2018

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Mukesh Kumar against HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited (OP-1) and HDFC Bank, Laxmi Nagar (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that complainant Mukesh Kumar who was having credit card of HDFC bank, got a policy issued through their executive under the plan “Young Star Supreme Suvidha Plan” vide policy no. 13461249 dated 04.03.2010.  The premium for the said policy was Rs. 24,000/- per year and the first installment of             Rs. 24,000/- was debited through his credit card.  The monthly installment was Rs. 2,000/- per month. 

          After completion of 12 installments by credit card, the complainant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- vide cheque no. 844954 dated 26.03.2011.  The complainant was shocked when on 30.03.2012, respondent returned the cheque with the remarks “Wrong Policy”.  When he contacted their executive, he came to know that due to lapse of installment, the policy was already cancelled as they did not receive the amount through OP-2.

          A detailed letter was sent to OP-2 on 11.04.2011 for which he did not receive any satisfactory reply.  The complainant wrote another letter on 11.12.2011.  He made a complaint with Ombudsman on 30.12.2011, but the complainant did not get any satisfactory reply from the respondent.  Thus, he has filed the present complaint with the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, praying for a refund of Rs. 24,000/- with 18% interest; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and pain and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation. 

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of OP-1, they have taken the plea that they have not received the initial premium amount of Rs. 24,000/- through credit card, issued by OP-2 i.e. HDFC bank and consequently, the proposal had been cancelled. 

          It has been stated that the cause of action had accrued to the complainant on 24.08.2011 and the present complaint has been filed on 09.01.2014 which was beyond the period of limitation. 

          They have further stated that there was no deficiency on their part.  They have also stated that since the proposal was cancelled due to non receipt of initial premium amount of Rs. 24,000/- by OP-1, the cheque given by the complainant dated 26.03.2011 was not accepted and returned to the complainant. 

          They have also stated that complaint made to insurance ombudsman was also dismissed by its order of dated 12.10.2012.  Thus, they have stated that there was no deficiency on the part of OP-1.

          HDFC bank (OP-2) did not appear inspite of notice; hence they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.       Rejoinder to the WS of OP-1 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of her complaint.

5.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the complaint.

          In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Akash Singh, Associate Manager-Legal.    He has deposed on affidavit.  He has reiterated the facts stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited documents such as authorization letter (Ex.OP1/1), letter written by OP of dated 24.08.2011 (Ex.OP1/2) and copy of the order of ombudsman (Ex.OP1/3).

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) that the complaint was time barred as the cause of action has arisen on 24.08.2011, whereas the complaint has been filed on 09.01.2014.  He has further argued that complainant filed a complaint with insurance ombudsman which was dismissed.  He has further argued that the amount of Rs. 24,000/- was not credited to the insurance company.

          On the other hand, counsel for complainant have argued that complaint was not time barred; order of ombudsman was not binding on the consumer forum and in lieu of the amount of Rs. 24,000/-, complainant issued a cheque which was returned by OP.

          The first and foremost point that arises for consideration is with regard to limitation.  If the contents of the complaint are gone through, it is noticed that in para 5 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- on 26.03.0211 which was returned by OP on 30.03.2011.  It has further been stated that when the complainant contacted the insurance company, he was told that due to lapse of installment, the policy was cancelled.  Thus, from this, it comes out that cause of actions has arisen on 30.03.2011.  Though, insurance company have stated that it has accrued on 24.08.2011, when the complainant was informed through their letter of dated 24.08.2011. 

          The complaint has been filed on 09.01.2014.  When the complainant himself has stated that it came to his knowledge on 30.03.2011, with regard to the cancellation of policy due to lapse of installment, certainly, the complaint was beyond the period of two years.  When the complaint was beyond the period of two years, the same was barred, therefore, there is force in the arguments advanced on behalf of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1).

          Not only that, if a look is made to the credit card statement, filed on behalf of the complainant, it is noticed that an amount of            Rs. 24,000/- was debited to the account of complainant on 24.02.2010 which was credited to his account on 02.03.2010.  Thus, the fact remains that HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1) did not receive an amount of Rs. 24,000/- which led to the cancellation of policy.  The issuance of cheque could not revive the policy which was already cancelled. 

          No doubt, the findings of ombudsman were not binding on the consumer forum, but the fact remains that the evidence led on behalf of complainant could not prove any deficiency on the part of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP-1).     

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no case of any deficiency on the part of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  (OP-1) was made out. Hence, the present complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President