Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant has saving bank account No. 50100043970002 with the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant also took personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the opposite party No. 3 against Fixed Deposit. The opposite party No. 3 opened a loan account No. 5104041 and disbursed Rs. 1,47,145/- in the saving account on 19.2.2018. The opposite party No. 4 Geetu Pataria who is agent/ employee of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 while obtaining above said loan got issued a policy namely HDFC life Sanchay Policy bearing No. 20144405 to the complainant from opposite party No. 1 and 2. The complainant is doing a private job in a factory and is earning Rs. 10,000/- as salary. The complainant opened a saving bank account bearing No. 50100043970002 with the opposite party No. 3 i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch office Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran on 9.9.2014. The complainant also done fixed deposit in the opposite party No. 3. Then the complainant took personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the opposite party No. 3 against Fixed Deposit. Opposite party No. 3 opened a loan account No. 5104041 and disbursed Rs. 1,47,145/- in the above said saving account on 19.2.2018.  The EMI fixed for the repayment of loan amount is Rs. 5,207/- which is to be auto debit from the said saving account of the complainant in favour of Bank. At the time of sanctioning of personal loan, the opposite party No.4 Geetu Pataria got issued the policy namely HDFC life Sanchay Policy bearing No. 20144405 having policy premium term for 5 years and policy term for 15 years to the complainant from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and opposite parties also deducted the first installment of Rs. 50,000/- from the saving bank account on the same day i.e. 19.2.2018 when the loan amount of Rs. 1,47,1445/- was disbursed. The complainant is an illiterate person and earning income by doing job in a private factory. The complainant availed personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the bank for personal necessity, but on the other hand the opposite parties  without the knowledge and consent of the complainant issued the insurance policy and also deducted Rs. 50,000/- as installment of policy from the disbursed loan amount. It is highly improbable for the complainant to take insurance policy for which he has no money to pay the premium. The complainant very hardly running the bread and butter of his family but the opposite parties done the insurance policy of complainant with annual installment of about Rs. 50,000/- . The insurance policy neither supplied to the complainant nor any terms and conditions were supplied or even explained to the complainant.  The complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the above said insurance policy which was issued without knowledge and consent of complainant and for refund of first premium which was deducted from the loan sanctioned to the complainant but the opposite parties never listen to the complaints of complainant. The complainant also made written request to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 separately   but opposite parties vide their letters dated 26.2.2019 and 28.3.2019 declined the requests of the complainant to cancel the above said policy. The complainant as prayed the following relieves.

1. The opposite parties be directed to cancel the above said policy in question issued to complainant.
2. The opposite parties be directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- i.e. amount of first premium with interest to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties be directed to pay litigation expenses and counsel fee amounting to Rs. 20,000/-.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of Nirmal Singh complainant Ex. C-1, copy of Passbook of Saving Bank account of complainant Ex. C-2, Copy of HDFC Life Sanchay Policy Ex. C-3, Copy of request letter dated 15.2.2019 Ex. C-4, Copy of request letter dated 15.2.2019 Ex. C-5, Copy of request letter dated 15.2.2019 Ex. C-6, Copy of refusal letter dated 26.2.2019 Ex. C-7, Copy of Refusal Letter dated 28.3.2019 Ex. C-8.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1, 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency in service qua the complainant, hence the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  The present complaint is filed on mere conjectures and surmises. The contents thereof are vexatious and malafide since it makes false and frivolous allegations against the opposite parties and are clearly an afterthought. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, therefore no case is made out against the opposite party under the Provisions of the Act. The present complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs thereto under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to drag a well reputed insurance company in to unnecessary, unwanted and speculative litigation. The complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred. As stated in the complaint itself, the alleged insurance policy was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party in the year 2018 and as such the present complaint is filed beyond the statutory limitation period of two years as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed straightway without any further proceedings being beyond limitation. As per records of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, the insured had purchased insurance policy from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and was required to pay annual premium but the complainant failed to pay the premium as per the insurance policy and proposal form submitted by the insured at the time of purchase of the insurance policy, hence the insurance policy already stands lapsed due to non payment of premiums and hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the opposite party, as alleged in the present complaint. The insured was well aware about the Free Look clause available in the policy according to which in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance product, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA (Protection of Policyholder’s interest) Regulations, 2002, the policy holders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bound. As he failed to get the policy cancelled with the said statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of policy and as such, the opposite party was unable to process request of the insured for cancellation of the insurance policy and the complainant was rightly declined the return of premium amount. The present complaint is no maintainable in the present form and false and baseless submissions have been made therein and complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.  Even otherwise, as claimed in the present complaint as the insured person who was matured and educated person, has made the investment by his own free will, without any sort of pressure, coercion or misrepresentation, knowing fully well the specification and details thereof, is much so that a declaration in this regard was specifically made by the complainant at the end of the proposal form that he has received, read and fully understood the product brochures and benefits illustrations, therefore,  at this stage nothing lies in the mouth of the complainant/ insured to turn around and refuse to comply with the requirements of the policy and to claim refund of the premium amount. The complainant was duly intimated by the opposite party vide letter dated 26.2.2019 but in spite of receipt of the said letter the complainant has filed the present complaint unnecessarily. The complainant is trying to use the mechanism of this commission to commit the breach of terms and conditions of the agreement entered between him and the opposite party and to wriggle out of the same which is not legally permissible, as such, the present complaint deserves outright dismissal on this ground also. The policy of insurance is the evidence of the terms of agreement between the insurer and the insured. The promise of the insurer to indemnify the insured is subject to the terms, conditions and exceptions of the Policy. Since the insured undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy only, the terms of agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer, the insured cannot be allowed to claim anything more than what is covered by the Policy. The policy was purchased by the complainant as per his own free will based upon the proposal form submitted by the complainant duly signed by him and the documents required for this purpose. As stated above, the complainant had submitted proposal form containing salient features and benefits available under the policy and after his full satisfaction, he purchased the insurance policy from the opposite party on the basis of proposal form and supporting documents submitting by the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the insurance policy purchased by him yet as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy was well aware about the Free Look clause available in the policy according to which in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance products, as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA (Protection of Policyholder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002, the policy holders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. As he failed to get the policy cancelled within the said stator period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy and as such, the opposite party was unable to process request of the insured for cancellation of the insurance policy and the complainant was rightly declined the return of the premium amount. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

3        The opposite party No. 3 and 4 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that as per the averments made in the complaint, complainant himself admitted that HDFC Life Sancha Policy bearing No. 20144405 issued to the complainant and first installment of Rs. 50000/- towards the premium of the policy was deducted on 19.2.2018 from his saving bank account. The complainant himself availed the HDFC Life Sanchay Policy, complainant himself given the relevant information and on line Proposal Form was duly filled at the instructions of the complainant and all the silent features of the policy its terms and conditions related to policy term, installments of the policy its benefits and more particularly about the option for cancellation of policy within the period of 15 days from the delivery/ dispatched as per IRDI guidelines etc. were was duly explained to him in vernacular language i.e. Punjabi to which he fully understand and which were acceptable to him and thereafter he himself also gone through all the terms and conditions related to the policy after admitting the same to be correct and genuine he purchased the insurance policy from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The complainant is having personal knowledge of the terms of the policy. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the notice of this commission and the present complaint is nothing but is an abuse of process of law. The opposite party No. 3 owns good reputation and known for providing excellent services to his valuable customers. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are at no fault in providing services to the complainant. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The present complaint is malafide and without cause of action against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The complainant has miserably failed to explain any deficiency, harassment on the part of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. As such, the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4, the present complaint is gross misuse of the legal process, instant complaint has been filed in order to harass and humiliate the innocent opposite parties No. 3 and 4. In fact there is no dispute of any kind in existence on the part of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and the present complaint is filed with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate innocent opposite parties. The agreement of the insurance has been duly executed between the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2, opposite parties No. 3 and 4 are not a party to that very insurance policy and privity of insurance contract executed between the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2. If there is any dispute regarding the insurance policy as alleged that is between the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The complainant is estopped from his own wrongful acts and conducts from filing the present complaint against the opposite parties NO. 3 and 4.  The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The present complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties.  The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties NO. 3 and 4 have placed on record affidavit of Mr. Sourav Saini Ex. OP 3,4/1, affidavit of Ms. Geetu Pataria Ex. OP 3,4/2, attested copy of resolution dated 17.10.2020 Ex. OP 3,4/3, Attested copy of electronic proposal form Ex. OP 3,4/4, Attested copy of Transfer application form dated  19.2.2018 Ex. OP 3,4/5, attested copy of customer consent document Ex. OP 3,4/6, SOA Ex. OP 3,4/7.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.

5        In the present complaint the complainant has saving bank account number 50100043970002 with the opposite party No.3 and the complainant also took personal loan of rupees 1,50,000/- from the opposite party No.3 against fixed deposit.  Opposite party number 3 opened a loan account number 5104041 and disbursed rupees 1,47,145/-  in the saving account on 19^th February 2018. EMI fixed for the repayment of loan amount is rupees 5,207/- which is to be auto debited from the saving account of the complainant in favour of the bank. At the time of sanctioning of personal loan opposite party No.4 Geetu Pataria got issued the policy namely HDFC life Sanchay policy bearing number 20144405 having policy premium term for five years and policy term for 15 years to the complainant from opposite party number 1 and 2 without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and the opposite parties also deducted the first installment of rupees 50,000/- from the saving account on the same day that is 19^th Feb 2018 when the loan amount of rupees one lakh 1,47,145 was disbursed. The complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the above said insurance policy which was issued without knowledge and consent of complaint and for refund the first premium which is deducted from the loan sanctioned to the complainant but the opposite parties never listen to the complaints of the complainant.  The complainant also made a written request to the opposite parties separately but opposite parties vide letters dated 26^th Feb 2019 and 28^th March 2019 declined the request of the complainant to cancel the above said policy.

6        Opposite parties No.1 & 2  stated in their written version that the alleged insurance policy was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party in the year 2018 and as such the present complaint is filed beyond the statutory limitation period of two years as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed being beyond of limitation.  Further ,the insured had purchased insurance policy from the opposite party and was required to pay annual premium but the complainant failed to pay the premium as per the insurance policy and proposal form submitted by the insured at the time of purchasing of the policy hence the insurance policy already stands lapsed due to non payment of premium and hence the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the opposite party as alleged in the present complaint. The insured was well aware about the freelook clause available in the policy according to which in case the insured was not satisfied with the insurance product as per agreed terms and conditions of the policy and IRDA Regulation 2002 ,the policyholders had an option to cancel the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy bond. As he failed to get the policy cancelled within the said statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy and as such the opposite party was unable to process request of the insured for cancellation of the insurance policy.

7        Opposite party No. 3 & 4  stated in their written version that as per the averments made in the complaint, complainant himself admitted that HDFC life Sanchay policy bearing numbers 20144405 issued to the complainant and 1^st installment of rupees 50,000/- towards the premium of the policy was deducted on 19^th Feb 2018 from his saving bank account. It is further submitted that complainant himself availed the HDFC Life Sanchay policy ,complainant himself given the relevant information on life proposal form was duly filled at the instructions of the complainant and all the salient features of the policy - terms and condition related to policy terms, installment of policy, its benefit and more particularly about the option of cancellation of policy within the period of 15 days from the delivery/ dispatched as per IRDI guidelines etc were duly explained to him in vernacular language. It is denied that a personal loan was guaranteed against the fixed deposit as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant committed default in making the payment of loan installments as per the agreed schedule and 13 loan installments of the complainant stands bounced and later on settlement with regard to loan outstanding took place and waiver of rupees ₹17,897.75 paisa was also given to the complainant as he failed to repay the entire loan amount as per agreed schedule. It is further submitted that at the time of availing personal loan complainant himself visited the branch of the opposite party No.3 as he was interested to purchase life insurance policy in order to get life insurance coverage and accordingly he discussed the same with the official of opposite party No.4 named Geetu Pataria.

8        The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have taken the objection that the present complaint is not well within time as the same has been filed after the lapse of 2 years. But we are not agreed with the opposite parties NO. 1 and 2 because the complainant has placed on record one letter dated  28.3.2019 (Ex. C-8) vide which the opposite parties have replied that we have not received any cancellation in free look period for policy in question. Now from the perusal of file it reveals that the present complaint has been filed on 25.3.2021 i.e. within two years from the letter dated 28.3.2019. Hence the present complaint is well within limitation.

9        As a result of the above discussion we are of the considered view that, the complainant has saving account No. 50100043970002 with the O.P No.3 ( Ex.C2) and took personal loan of Rs 1,50,000/- from the O.P No.3,the EMI fixed for the repayment of loan amount is Rs. 5,207/- which is to be auto debited from the said saving account of the complainant (Ex.Op-3,4/7 bank statement) which clearly shows the list of PDC’s Bounced ,where 13 loan installments of the complainant stand bounced , but the whole controversy in the present case revolves around the point as to whether the O.Ps No. 1, 2 have sold the said policy to the complainant by misguiding and misrepresentation, without the consent and knowledge of the complainant?

10      We are not agreed with the complainant that the O.Ps No. 1, 2 have sold the above said policy without the consent and knowledge of the complainant because the complainant has placed on record copies of policy schedule  which have been exhibited by the complainant himself as (Ex.C3) , which clearly show the plan name, policy term i.e. 15 years and policy paying premium i.e. 5 years and clearly shows that the premium due date as 22^nd Feb  , date of commencement of policy i.e. 22^nd feb2018 , Nomination schedule i.e. father of the complainant named Mr.Balwinder Singh . Further,O.P also has placed on record copies of  proposal form signed by the complainant as (Ex.Op3,4/6)  and transfer application form signed by the complainant which clearly show that amount of Rs.50,000/- transferred to HDFC Life with the consent of the complainant (Ex.OP-3,4/5). The complainant has not availed the benefit of free look period of 15 days. He would have returned the policy within free look period but the complainant failed to do the same and at the stage, the complainant cannot raise the plea that the policy was done without his knowledge.  The opposite parties No. 1, 2 have raised the contention that the complainant has failed to demonstrate in deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1, 2. Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance; which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of the contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The terms and conditions of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with a strict construction of contract As per Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Siba Prasad Dash, reported as IV (2008) CPJ 156(NC) it has been held that the opposite party has covered the complainant under the policy in question.  The premium which was paid by the complainant was to cover the risk for given period and opposite party has duly covered the risk for which the premium has been paid. Moreover, the complainant has signed the policy documents himself and at this stage he cannot take plea that it was not explained to him. After receiving the said policy the complainant has never approached to the opposite parties No. 1, 2 for cancellation of the same if he was not agreed with the terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, both parties are bound to obey the terms and conditions of the policy as it is a contract between both the parties. Reliance has been placed upon Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 567 and Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Madhavacharya (Revision Petition No. 211 of 2009),  wherein it was held by the National Commission that “Since the insurance between the insurer and the insured is a contract between the parties, the terms of the agreement including applicability of the provision and also its exclusion had to be strictly construed to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer.  The complainant was given sufficient time i.e. free look period to go through the terms and conditions of the policy which was duly supplied by the opposite parties No. 1, 2 . The opposite party has placed on record various documents as well as bank detail which clearly shows that the complainant is totally aware about the policy.

11      In view of above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and the complainant is entitled to surrender value as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, from the opposite parties No. 1, 2. Hence, opposite parties No. 1, 2 are directed to refund the fund value of the policy. The present complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. The parties are left to bear their own costs.     Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

08.05.2024