The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased two single Premium policy HDFC Classic Assured worth Rs.1,00,000/- each one in the name of her husband Asok Kumar Sil and her son Aritra Sil was proposer and another is in the name of her grand daughter Rupta Sil where the proposer is the complainant/petitioner. Signatures of the parties and cheques bearing no. 160271 & 160272 of Rs.1,00,000/- each drawn at Allahabad Bank, Chinsurah Branch from the house of the petitioner/complainant as the single premium cost and the cheque has been encashed by the oP no.1 on 22.3.2014 and 2.4.2014 respectively of Rs.2,00,000/- for policy cost. On 11.4.2014 after receiving the policy Bond being no.16786373 in the name of Rupta Sil , very surprisingly to note that the policy name is Super Income Plan instead of Classic Assured and the Policy term is not single year it is eight years. Policy which are not be required by the complainant/petitioner and amounting to Rs.78,625/- only where the Op no.2 taken cheque worth Rs.1,00,000/- and encashed the same and
the petitioner have to receive the refund of Rs.18,945/- after deducting Rs.2430/- without any cogent reason. The complainant and her son then and there contacted the oP no.2 who assured them to rectify it and as per his advice the complainant handed over a letter to the OP no.2 for cancelling the Policy of HDFC LIFE Super Income Plan. Thereafter, the complainant contacted with Op no.1 regarding the policy no.16786373 in the name of Rupta Sil . The Op no.1 also stated that one policy being no.16749584 which is Classic Assure Plus Policy in the name of Aritra Sil and it has not been delivered due to improper address. After knowing that the petitioner became perplexed and queried that the Policy no.16749584 been made by the oP no.2 in the name of Aritra Sil instead of Asok Kumar Sil and it is Classic Assure Plus Policy and it is seven years premium policy instead of single premium. Be it mentioned here that in case of start a Life Insurance Policy by the company i.e. here the op no.1 always verified the details of the customer through phone number and in policy no.16786373 the phone no. is not the petitioner and in case of policy no.16749584 no verification was took place. Then the complainant visited the Op no.4 on 7.5.2014 and submitting a letter for cancellation of the policy no.16786373 but they refused to accept the cancellation letter and advised the petitioner to make contact or sent through
e.mail. On 13.5.2014 the petitioner again visited the OP no.4 and requested them to cancel or change the policy no.16786373 and 16749584 .The oP no.4 filled up the cancellation form in respect of the policy no.16749584 but refused to accept in respect of the policy no.16786373. Hence, this complaint filed by the complainant for proper redressal.
The Op no.1 and 4 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op no.1 and 4 is that On March, 2014 the answering op received a duly filled up proposal form of the complainant from its broker i.e. the oP no.2 and 3 for issuance of a HDFC Life Super Income Plan for the benefit of Rupa Sil . Upon receipt of such duly signed proposal form, the answering Ops issued the policy being no.16786373. The complainant was also provided with the illustration document which clearly states the working benefits term and type of policy. The said policy was for term of 10 years with an annual premium of Rs.79,843/- payable for 7 years. It is pertinent to mention here that each policy document as per the IRDA Guidelines contains an option to return of the policy, if the policy holder is not satisfied with its Free Look period. The complainant after expiry of the free look period approached the
answering OP by her Advocate’s notice dated 15.5.2014 thereby alleging mis-sale of the policy, seeking cancellation and refund of the premium amount. After receipt of the notice the answering OP made detailed investigation upon the complaint and upon investigation, the allegation of missale was found to be incorrect and sent a reply dated 5.8.2014 to the complainant that they were unable to process the request of cancellation. Hence , the oP no.1 and 2 prays for dismissal of the case.
The Op no.2 and 3 inspite of service of notice did not appear before this Forum. The case was heard exparte against Op no.2 and 3.
Complainant filed (1) photo copy of HDFC Life Super Income Plan, (2) Photo copy of HDFC Life Classic Assure Plus dated 10.5.14, (3) Phot copy of Saving Account Pass Book of Allahabad Bank (4) Photocopy of Savings Account Pass Book of S.B.I. Bandel Branch (5) Photo copy of G.mail (6) Photo copy of Advocate’s letter and some other photo copies of document. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument. Op no. 1 and 4 filed Written version, Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of argument.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by all the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted position that the petitioner/complainant purchased two single premium policies of Rs.1,00,000/- each and he complainant issued cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- and the said was encashed by the oP no.1 on 22.3.2014 and 2.4.2014. But the said policy was not that policy because the OP no.1 and 4 again wanted premium after one year. The petitioner got refund of Rs.18,945/-. The complainant informed the op no.1 and 4 that they wanted Classic Assured Plan with one time single premium but the policy paper shows Super Income Plan with eight years premium paying term. The complainant informed this matter after getting this policy on 7.5.2014. But Op no.1 and 4 did not take any appropriate
action regarding return and redressal of grievances by the complainant. The policy filed by the complainant and her son is not in consonance with the prayer of the complainant . The Op no.1 and 4 has filed the proposal form and stated that HDFC Life Super Income plan was made by the complainant and the said policy was term for 10 years. But the Op did not state who filled in Proposal Form and whether the same proposal form were read and explained to the Proposer and after understanding the complainant and others put signature in the proposal form. Complainant has paid the money to Op. Op has taken the money from the complainant . It is the bounden duty of the Opposite party that the complainant put signature in the proposal form after understanding the contents of the Proposal form. But Op did not adduce any such kind of evidence, so the presumption of correctness of the proposal form cannot stand. Moreover, question arises why the complainant gave two cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-. There is no answer of OP on this point.
So, after circumspection over the documents placed before this Forum and going through the written reply by the complainant against the interrogatories of Op no.1 and 4 wherein answer 7 shows “my signature was taken on your blank
form only” so this evidence elicited by the Op no.1 and 4 shows that complainant put signature in the blank form and the form after filled in was not read over to
the complainant. So after deliberation over the totality of evidence and material before us , particularly cross examination convinced us to conclude that OP no.1 and 4 is liable for unfair trade practice upon the complainant and they did not discharge their duties with due care and attention towards complainant. So the case succeeds on contest. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 207 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.1 and 4 is directed to cancel the Policy being no.16786373 in the name of Rupta Sil with interim effect. The Op no.1 and 4 are directed to refund Rs.81,249.05 and Rs.79,843.00 with interest to the petitioner/complainant. The Op no.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for her unnecessary mental agony , harassment and pain . The Op no.1 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The Op no.1 and 4 shall comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.300/- per day would be imposed upon the Op no.1 and 4,
after the statutory period of 30 days, and that amount would be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund till realisation.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
