Sukhbir Singh Vs. HDFC                    CC/15/298

22.12.2015:Present: Sh.Dinesh Tiwari, counsel for the complainant.

1. It is alleged by the complainant that his son Sukhbir Singh Gill is living in Canada since 1989. He had visited India in the year 2010 when he visited the branch of Op no.2 bank to withdraw some amount. Mr.Dev Puri, the then branch head met Sukhbir Singh Gill and he apprised him about the exciting life insurance policy which would yield a handsome return i.e. morethan double the invested amount within few years. Relying upon the said representation made by Mr.Dev Puri, the son of the complainant agreed to invest the amount in a policy having a tenure of five years and signed the blank printed forms and also provided his passport size photo. Mr.Puri assured the son of the complainant that he would get the policy at his residence within 15 days. The son of the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3lacs upto 2013 with Op no.2 @ Rs.one lac per annum and also received the receipts dated 7.6.2010, 9.6.2011 and 11.6.2012.
2. On 26.6.2013, the son of the complainant received a letter from HDFC Bank alongwith the annual unit statement of the insurance policy for the period 9^th June,2012 to 8^th June,2012 and as per the plan summary, fund value was shown as Rs.2,34,167/-.On receipt of the said letter, the complainant visited Op no.2 and the representative of the bank informed the complainant that the maturity amount till date was Rs.2,34,167/- as certain charges were deducted.
3. It is further averred that Mr.Puri had never disclosed the  son of the complainant  about the deduction of any charges.The representative of the bank also informed the son of the complainant that the policy was for a tenure of 11 years and the policy will mature after the end of 11 years. Thus Op bank misrepresented the son of the complainant and the bank illegally deducted Rs.65833/- as mortality charges alongwith other charges.
4. The son of the complainant discussed the matter with the authority of the HDFC bank and he decided to discontinue with the policy because of the misrepresentation made by the representative of the bank namely Mr.Puri.
5. It is further averred that the complainant filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman Chandigarh, who decided the same on 1.12.2014 vide which Mr.Manik Sonawane (Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh) was of the view that the complainant had been defrauded by the bank having misguided and made false assurance of the payment after payment of only five premiums but the complainant should have  gone through the proposal form as also the policy and directed the bank authority to cancel the policy and adjust the premium in a new single premium policy with a lock-in-period of five years subject to underwriting and fulfillment of requirements. However, the bank authorities had never sent any document in this regard to the complainant qua any intimation.
6. It is further averred that the complainant approached the bank in the month of July,2015 to get the amount of policy No.13713631 with interest but the Op put the matter off under one or the other pretext. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint through his general attorney namely Sh.Harcharan Singh Gill his father under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.3lacs with interest from the date of the deposit and also to award the compensation for the harassment.
7. It is the case of the complainant that Mr.Dev Puri, Branch Manager of Op no.2 had under false representation sold the policy No.13713631 in favor of the son of the complainant for a tenure of five years with the assurance that the amount invested in the policy shall yield more than double the invested amount and that the son of the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3lacs upto 2013 having deposited Rs.one lac per annum but when the son of the complainant received the letter dated 26.6.2013 from the HDFC Bank alongwith annual unit statement for the period 9^th June,2012 to 8^th June,2012(wrongly recorded in place of 8 June,2013), the same showed the fund value in the plan summary as Rs.2,34,167/- as against the invested amount of Rs.3lacs.It is also the case of the complainant that his son had opted the tenure of the policy for five years and representative of the bank informed the complainant, when he had  met on receipt of the letter, that the policy was meant for 11 years.
8. The complainant has placed on file the original policy issued on 10^th June,2010 in the name of Sh.Sukhvir Singh Gill, the name of the policy issued in the name of the son of the complainant being  HDFC Endowment Supreme Suvidha Policy  and the schedule of the policy explains the features of the policy i.e. amount of the sum assured as Rs.five lacs, term of the policy as 11 years and the amount of the annual premium as Rs.One lac. So much so the policy contains the schedule of benefits which also discloses the expiry date of the policy as 9.6.2021. The policy also contains schedule of charges. The policy contains the first premium receipt dated 9.6.2010 and the reverse of which also contains the features of the policy which discloses the plan start date as 9.6.2010 and the plan maturity date as 9.6.2021.It also contains the unit statement for the period 9^th June,2010 to 10^th June,2010 showing the fund value as Rs.66,287.08. The policy also contains the monthly policy charge details. Therefore, every information having been provided in the policy by Op no.1 to the insured, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say that Mr.Puri,the Branch Manager of Op no.2 had made a misrepresentation about the features of the policy qua the tenure thereof. The policy document at the top was attached with the covering letter which interalia provided: “In case you are not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy and the details in the proposal form, you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reasons thereof, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. On receipt of your letter alongwith the original policy documents, we shall arrange to refund the value of units allocated to you on the date of receipt of request plus the unallocated part of the premium plus charges levied by cancellation of units, subject to deduction of the proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and stamp duty. A policy once returned shall not be revived , reinstated or restored at any point of time”.
9. What to talk of the complainant not agreeing the provisions of the policy received by him, he went on depositing the annual premium for a further period of two years upto 2013 and in that way the complainant fully ratified the terms and conditions of the policy without any demur. The complainant has not produced on file the letter dated 26.6.2013 as also the statement attached therewith for the period 9^th June,2012 to 8 June,2012, which should have been for the period 9^th June,2012 to 8^th June,2013, showing the fund value at Rs.2,34,867/-. In any case, the complainant has not challenged the correctness of the fund value and rather he failed to challenge the said letter before this Forum within a period of two years from the date of the receipt of the letter and rather approached the Insurance Ombudsman,Chandigarh.The complainant has placed on file the copy of the order dated 1.12.2014 passed by Insurance Ombudsman,Chandigarh relating to paras no.5 to 8 and para no.7 of the same reads: “After going through the written submissions and verbal pleadings, I am of a view that although Shri Sukhbir Singh Gill was misguided by false assurance of a payment of only five premiums but still he should have gone through the proposal form as well as policy documents to understand and familiarize with the terms and conditions of the policy. Moreover, a payment of subsequent premiums indicates his inclination for acceptance of the policy. Keeping in view this factual position, an award is passed with a direction to the insurance company to cancel the mentioned policy since inception and adjust the premium in a new single premium policy with a lock-in-period of 5 years subject to underwriting and fulfillment of requirements”.
10. In view of the said order passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh , whereby an award was passed with a direction to the insurance company to cancel the mentioned policy since inception and adjust the premium in a new single premium policy with a lock-in-period of five years subject to underwriting and fulfillment of requirements, we fail to understand as to how the complainant could maintain this complaint before this Forum particularly when the Insurance Ombudsman also gave the view that the payment of the subsequent premiums by the complainant would go to show that he had  accepted the policy. May that as it be, the complainant has not been able to show prima facie any deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 showing the incorrectness of the fund value of Rs.2,34,167/- allegedly received by the complainant vide letter dated 26.6.2013 attached with the statement for the period 9^th June,2012 to 8^th June,2013, which the complainant has not been able to produce alongwith the complaint and therefore, no case of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops having been made out , the complaint is hereby rejected. The copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost under the rules.

                                File be consigned to the record room.

                            Member               Member               President