Haryana

Ambala

CC/229/2018

Kanchan Dua - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Inss - Opp.Party(s)

22 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:  229 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution  :    01.08.2018.

                                                          Date of decision     :    22.03.2021

 

Kanchan Dua wife of Late Col. J.S. Dua, House No.341, Sector-C, Lane No.8, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman, 12th & 13^th Floor, Lodha Excellus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, Maharashtra.  
2. Director, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
3. Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Nichalson Road, Sudhershan Towers, Cross Road No.1, Ambala Cantt.

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri P.S.Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,13,468/- along with compound interest @18% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 13.11.2013, till realisation.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges.
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that complainant is a senior citizen and window of Late Col. J.S. Dua, who gave his life for the country in Operation Rakshak, Jammu and Kashmir on 25.01.1992. In order to get financial security in her old age, the complainant wanted to invest some amount and was willing to purchase viable insurance policy. The representatives of the OPs, approached her with many lucrative schemes and on their assurance she opted to purchase HDFC Personal Pension Plan Regular Premium Policy. As per the said policy document, on maturity, basic benefits payable on survival of the life assured to the vesting date, the policy attains a notional cash value, which is made up of the sum assured stated against personal pension plan-vesting benefit in the schedule of benefits plus any attaching bonuses. She was assured of benefits arising out of the policy without any hassles and with good returns. In view of promises and assurances made by OPs, complainant purchased the above mentioned policy, for a term of 10 years by paying premium annually and had paid the first premium of Rs.10,081/-, alongwith application. Application of the complainant was accepted by the OPs and they issued the policy bearing number 000000267638, having commencing date 12 November, 2003. The OPs assured her to pay Rs.1,04,000/- on the date of expiry/vesting date i.e. 12.11.2013, alongwith attached bonuses. In pursuance of the policy issued to the complainant, she deposited annual premium of Rs.10,081/- with the OPs, lastly on 12.11.2012. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, she was entitled for vesting proceeds arising out of above mentioned policy in the month of November 2013. She approached the OPs a number of times for release of proceeds on maturity of above mentioned policy. The requests of the complainant fell on deaf ears and the OPs did not took care to pay the maturity amount till date. Complainant ran from pillar to post to get the benefits under the policy. She invested the amount from her family pension, by squeezing her needs to have a better and secure future, so that she can get best of returns and live hassle free life without any problems. Complainant also served a legal notice dated 29.07.2016, upon the OPs, but of no avail. By not paying the benefits under the policy, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action, bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of the parties and jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the policy was purchased by the complainant. The basic aim of the policy was to provide financial security to the complainant in her old age by giving regular amount of money as pension. The complainant has distorted the term no.2 of the policy, which is reproduced as under:-

BENEFITS:

(ii)     Benefits payable on survival of the life assured to the vesting date:

          At the vesting date, the policy attains a notional value, which is made up of the Sum Assured stated against the personal pension plan-vesting benefits in the schedule of benefits plus any attaching bonuses subject to the prevailing legislation and regulations, part of this can be taken as a lump sum and the rest converted in an annuity at the rates, terms & conditions then offered by us. Alternatively it is permitted by the prevailing regulations; the notional value can be used to buy an annuity with other company who will accept such business.

The entire matured amount cannot be released to the complainant. Rather some part of the matured amount has to be invested in the annuity plan for regular income as pension. The OP is still ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was for the term of ten years, and premium of Rs.10,018/- was to be paid annually. The said policy, was to mature on 12.11.2013, and the OP company well before the said maturity date sent the letter dated 26.08.2013, to the complainant and subsequently on dated 05.12.2013, 05.01.2014, 07.02.2014, 10.03.2014, 11.04.2014, 05.05.2014, 05.06.2014, 07.07.2014, 08.08.2014, 12.09.2014, 18..10.2014, 12.11.2014, 04.12.2014, 05.02.2015, 25.06.2015, 11.09.2017  and lastly on 28.02.2018, with regard to selection of annuity plan. But to the utter surprise of the OPs, none of the letters were ever replied by the complainant, nor she opted the annuity plan either of the OP Company or of any other company offering such annuity plan. The complainant was always made to understand the nature of the policy. The rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for want of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Arpit Higgins, Executive Legal, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited Chandigarh, as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-20 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased the policy in question from the OPs on 12.11.2003, and paid the premium of Rs.10,081/-annually for 10 years. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant was entitled for vesting proceeds to the tune of Rs.1,13,468/-, arising out of the above mentioned policy in November 2013, but the OPs did not release the said amount. On the contrary the Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the present complaint is barred by limitation because cause of action accrued to the complainant on 12.11.2013, when the policy in question got matured, however she has filed the present complainant on 01.08.2018, i.e. after the expiry of more than two years, from the date of accrual of the cause. He further argued that the complainant had taken a personal pension plan. As per Clause No.2:

Benefits:

‘i)      Benefits payable on survival of the life assured to the vesting date:

          At the vesting date, the policy attains a notional value, which is made up of the Sum Assured stated against the personal pension plan-vesting benefits in the schedule of benefits plus any attaching bonuses subject to the prevailing legislation and regulations, part of this can be taken as a lump sum and the rest converted in an annuity at the rates, terms & conditions then offered by us. Alternatively it is permitted by the prevailing regulations; the notional value can be used to buy an annuity with other company who will accept such business.’

On maturity of the policy, the complainant was to select the annuity plan. The OPs sent her several letters requesting her to select the annuity plan, but she did not select the annuity plan, as a result whereof, she is not entitled to get any benefits under the policy in question. It may be stated here that since, complainant had opted for a life time pension plan and it has been availed by her till date and the premium paid by her is lying deposited with the OPs, as such there is continuous cause of action to file a complaint. So far as the letters Annexure OP/4 to OP/17, allegedly sent to the complainant are concerned, the same are not supported by any mode of sending and proof of delivery to the complainant. Thus, these letters have no value in the eyes of law. It is therefore, held that the letters were never delivered to the complainant. As far as the main issue is concerned, once the premium had been paid to the company, without any default, the complainant is entitled to get the benefits out of the said policy. However, from the term No.2, Benefits of Standard Policy Provisions Annexure C-7, it is abundantly clear that to get the benefits under the policy in question, it was incumbent upon the complainant to opt for the required annuity plan. It is the plea of the OPs that the complainant has never opted for the annuity plan and for this reason, benefits could not be released to her. Nothing has been placed on record by the complainant to establish that she had ever opted for the annuity plan. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that necessary directions are required to be passed to the complainant to visit the office of the OPs or to send a letter opting for required annuity, so that the benefits under the policy in question, could be provided to her by the OPs. In this view of the matter, we hereby dispose of the present complaint, directing the complainant to approach the OPs for opting required annuity, within the period 10 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to give all the consequential benefits, which otherwise were available with the complainant w.e.f. 12.11.2013 i.e. date of maturity, under the said scheme within 45 days, after doing the needful by the complainant. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 22.03.2021.

 

 

                          Sd/-                                   Sd/-                    Sd/-

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                   Member             President