District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.602/2021.

 Date of Institution: 23.11.2021.

Date of Order: 8.8.2022.

Abhishek Chawla S/o Shri Bhim Sain Chawla R/o H.No. 349, Ward No.3, Punjabi Mohalla, Tehsil Ballabgarh Distt. Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, HDFC SL Delhi-Mayur  Vihar Branch, Plot NO.1A, First floor, Star City Mall, Mayur Palace, Distt. Center, Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi – 110 091 through its Branch Manager.

                   Also at:

5^th floor, Eureka Tower, Miknd Space Complex, Link road, Malad (West) Mumbai – 400 064.

                                                                    …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

PRESENT:                    Shri Vijay Kumar Rawat, counsel for the Complainant.

                             Sh.  Sagar Bhatia, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was holder of HDFC SL Classic Pension Insurance Plan of opposite party vide policy No. 14525701 dated 31.07.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.1,62,328/-, policy No. 14600238 dated 17.09.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.3,25,972/-, policy No. 14447307 dated 21.06.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.1,16,980/- and policy NO. 14482144 dated 09.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,62,328/-. . At the time of selling the above said policies to complainant representative of opposite party had disclosed to the complainant that  complainant would pay one time premium of Rs.24,619/-, Rs.49,236/-, Rs.14,771/- and Rs.24,619/- and he will get the sum assured of Rs.1,62,328/-, Rs.3,25,972/-, Rs.1,16,980/- and Rs.1,62,328/- after maturity of the above said policies on 27.07.2021, 12,09,2021, 18.06.2026 and 07.07.2021 or in case of death of beneficiary.  On believing the words of said Executive as well as keeping in view the image of opposite party in Banking and policy sector complainant had purchased the said policy of opposite party and opposite party had issued Unique identification No. 101N076V01  for each policy and bond of said policy to the complainant. After the maturity period of one policy on 27.07.2021, 12.09.201 and 07.07.2021 complainant had approached to opposite party for the knowledge of completing the process of opposite party to get release the maturity amount in his favour.  Complainant got shocked to know that opposite party were unable to release the maturity amount of Rs.1,62,328/-, Rs.3,25,972/- and Rs.1,62,328/- in favour of complainant as complainant had not paid any other installment/premium of the said amount during the 09 years times period of the said policy except the first premium amount.  The complainant had no knowledge about the deposition of other premium of the above said policy as their representative had disclosed to complainant that only one time premium would be paid by complainant in the said policy at the time of purchasing the above said policy and thereafter complainant would receive the sum assured of Rs.1,62,328/-, Rs.3,25,972/- and Rs.1,62,328/- at the time of maturity of said policy i.e. 10 years on dated 27.07.2021, 12.09.2021 and 07.07.2021.The  complainant never received any intimation, message or notice from the side of opposite party during said 10 years time period for deposit the remaining installments of the said policy and at the time of selling the above said policy to complainant their representative had disclosed to complainant only one installment of the said policy would be made by complainant and he never  disclosed to the complainant that 09 annual instalments would be paid by the complainant to opposite party for taking the benefit of sum assured amount after maturity of the said policy.  The complainant many times requested opposite party to release the maturity amount after maturing the above said policies on 27.07.2021, 12,09,2021 and 07.07.2021 but opposite party were not giving any heed to the genuine requests and reminders of complainant and were refusing the same by taking  the false plea of non paying the remaining installments of the above said policy by the complainant.  The complainant sent legal notice to opposite party to the opposite parties but all in vain.  The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                get back the payment of  Rs.1,62,328/-, Rs.3,25,972/- and Rs.1,62,328/- as matured amount  or to release the amount of Rs.24,619/-, rs.49,326/- rs.24,619/- and Rs.14,771/-, alongwith interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of deposit the same i.e. on 18.06.2011, 27.07.2011, 12.09.2011 and 07.07.2011 till its final realization.

 b)                pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the captioned complaint was not maintainable in as much as no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party to file the present complaint.It was submitted that the complainant had taken following  four policies on his own name:-

a)       “HDFC SL Classic Assure Insurance Plan” Life Insurance Policy No. 14447307 commencing form 18.06.2011 for sum assured of Rs.1,16,980/- having policy term of 15 years and premium paying term of 7 years. The annual premium of Rs.15,000/- (including taxes) payable on due date of 18^th June of every year with grace period of 15 days.

B)      “HDFC SL Classic Pension Insurance Plan’ Life Insurance Policy No. 14482144 commencing form 07.07.2011 for sum assured of Rs.1,62,328/- having policy term of 10 years and premium paying term of 7 years.  The annual premium of Rs.25,000/- (including taxes) payable on due date of 07^th July of every year with grace period of 15 days.

C)      “HDFC SL Classic Pension Insurance Plan’ Life Insurance Policy No. 14525701 commencing form 27.07.2011 for sum assured of Rs.1,62,328/- having policy term of 10 years and premium paying term of 7 years.  The annual premium of Rs.25,000/- (including taxes) payable on due date of 27^th July of every year with grace period of 15 days.

D)      “HDFC SL Classic Pension Insurance Plan’ Life Insurance Policy No. 14600238 commencing form 12.09..2011 for sum assured of Rs.3,25,972/- having policy term of 10 years and premium paying term of 7 years.  The annual premium of Rs.50,000/- (including taxes) payable on due date of 12^th September of every year with grace period of 15 days.

                   It was submitted that the complainant before submitting the proposal form by the complainant in respect of aforementioned Life Insurance Policies, the representative of the opposite party duly advised and explained all terms and conditions, Benefits, Premium Paying Term, Policy Tenure of HDFC SL Classic Assure and HDFC SL Classic Pension Plan and also provided Insurance Plan Illustration in writing which was duly acknowledge by the complainant.  It was submitted that the complainant received policy bond of aforementioned policies wherein the particulars of policy including sum assured, premium amount, policy term, premium paying term etc.  The complainant had 15 days ‘Free Look Period’ form the date  of receipt of policy document , during which the complainant/insured had an option to return the policy kit to insurance company.  As per Free Look Period Clause, ‘if the policyholder was not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy and the details in the proposal form, he /she has the option to return or withdraw the policy by stating the reason(s) thereof.  The policy holder had 15 days ‘Free-Look Period’ from the date of  receipt of policy bond & papers during which the policy holder had an option to return the policy kit.  But in the present case, the complainant did not exercise the option to return the policies on the grounds available within Free Look Period nor the opposite party received cancellation request from the complainant within 15 days free look period. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd with the prayer to : a)            get back the payment of  Rs.1,62,328/-, Rs.3,25,972/- and Rs.1,62,328/- as matured amount  or to release the amount of Rs.24,619/-, rs.49,326/- rs.24,619/- and Rs.14,771/-, alongwith interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of deposit the same i.e. on 18.06.2011, 27.07.2011, 12.09.2011 and 07.07.2011 till its final realization. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence, EX.PW1/A – affidavit of Abhishek Chawla, Ex.P1 – legal notice, Ex.P2 & P3 – postal receipts, Ex.P4 to 7 – policies.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW-1/A – affidavit of Shri Kunal Aurora, Deputy Manager- Legal HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd., having its office at 4^th floor, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

6.                These  four complaints are filed by the some family members :

Complaint No.      Case titled

600/23.11.2021    Rita Chawla          Vs. HDFC Standard Insurance Co. Ltd.

601/23.11.2021    Bhim Sain Chawla Vs.   - do –

598/23.11.2021    Puneet Chawla      Vs.    – do-

602/223.11.2021  Abhishek Chawla Vs.    – do –

As per the allegations leveled by the complainant, the above said complaints are  the case of mis-sale.  But after going through the evidence led by the complainant as well as  opposite parties,  the  date of issuance of policy and date of maturity is as under:

All the four complaints are filed on 23.11.2021.

The counsel for the complainant argued at length and  alleged that as per the sales man the premium was given only one time for the above said polices and they will get the sum assured maturity amount. The complaints were filed after the maturity date of the policy.

                   On the other hand counsel for the opposite party argued at length and also objected  on the point of limitation and cause of action was occurred in the year 2011 & Free Look Period was of 15 days.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the parties and  there are lot of citations and comments given by the Ld. Apex Court about the mis-sale.   In the interest of justice, the Commission is of the opinion that all the complaints have been disposed off with the direction to opposite party  to refund the deposited amount after deduction of 25% as administrative charges.  There are no order as to costs. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  08.08.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.