Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/70/2013/RBR

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HFDC Standard Life - Opp.Party(s)

HS Kundra

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.      : 70/2013/RBR        

Date of decision                     :  12.08.2016

 

Shri Bahadur Singh son of Shri Kartar Singh, Resident of Village Pharala Tehsil Banga, District  Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar                                                                                     ….Complainant

    Versus

1.       HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, HDFC Bank City District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

2.       HDFC Bank, through its Branch Manager, G.T. Road Phagwara, Paradise Theater Phagwara City.

3.       HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited through its Vice President – Customer Service, Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020, India.

                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.S.S. Kundra, Advocate

For OP No. 1&3            :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

For OP-2                        :         None

 

QUORUM:

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 ORDER

 

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       This case file has received by remand from Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab vide its order dated 24.02.2015.  On the averments mentioned in the complaint that complainant is account holder with HDFC Bank bearing account No.13311000057019 and having customer ID No.30534948.  Unfortunately, the sale representative of OP-1 by misrepresentation sold four insurance policies to him.  At the time of selling of the said insurance policies, complainant was told that if he is being not satisfied with the policies, then he could cancel the same and the amount would be refunded to him at any juncture of time.  It is stated that when he came to know that the above said insurance policies were sold to him by misrepresentation by OP No. 1&2, then immediately thereafter,  in September 2011, he filed a complaint with OP No. 1&2, who assured him that four policies purchased by him will be cancelled and payment advanced to him very shortly.  However, the payments of three policies were made and the payment of fourth policy was retained with malice.  The complainant again approached OP No. 1&2 and requested for cancellation of fourth policy.  On his request, it was informed to him that policy has been cancelled and the money would be advanced to him after sometime.  But nothing was done by the OPs.  Legal notice was also served upon the OPs but no reply/response was received from the OPs.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service and the OPs be directed to make the payment of fourth policy alongwith interest and OP be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith litigation expenses amounting to Rs.11,000/-.

2.       OP No.1&3 have filed written reply taking preliminary objections have taken that complainant has already received sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP No.1&3 on 19.06.2013 and no cause of action has arisen  in favour of the complainant against OP No.1&3 to file the present complaint and as such complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it was stated that the allegations of the complainant that the OPs have sold four policies by misrepresentation is wrong, hence denied.  It was stated that as per request of the complainant, the investigation regarding mis-selling of the policies was conducting by them and the amount was refunded to him, irrespective of the facts that they had to bear the expenses for issuance of said policies and had to pay necessary statutory charges and Government taxes from their own pocket.  Since, the entire grievance of the complainant has been resolved, hence the complainant has no occasion to file this complaint, same be dismissed with costs. 

3.       The OP-2 has not submitted any written submissions.

4.       In support his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, affidavit Ex.C-6, in additional evidence, he tendered attested statement of account Ex.PX and closed the evidence.

5.       Learned Counsel for OP No.1&3 has tendered affidavit of Sh.Harsimran Singh, Deputy Manager (Legal) Ex.RW1/A, alongwith copies of documents i.e. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and he also summoned witness who tendered documents Ex.RW2/A to Ex.RW2/H, Ex.RW3/A, RW3/E,  and closed the evidence. 

6.       We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence, written arguments produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the contesting parties.

7.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record, it is clear that complainant has account holder bearing No.13311000057019 of HDFC Bank.  The complainant alleged that the OP No.1&3 – HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company mis-sold four policies in the name of complainant and OP No.1&3 assured the complainant that if complainant was not satisfied with the insurance policies then his insurance policies would be cancelled and amount would be returned instantly.  Complainant found that insurance policies have been mis-sold by the OPs No.1&3 in conclusion with each other and immediately in September 2011, complainant filed complaint with OP No.1&3 and they assured that all the four policies had been cancelled and the payment paid by complainant would be returned shortly.  However, the payments of paid premiums of three policies were returned to the complainant but payment of fourth policy was retained with malice.  Complainant requested the OP No.1&3 for cancellation of the fourth policy and refund of the premium amount but OP No.1&3 did not any heed to the request of complainant.  Learned counsel for complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OPs qua complainant.

          Whereas, the case of the OPs No.1&3 is that in year 2011 to obtaining the policy, the proposal form/application dated 12.08.2011 was submitted by the complainant, which was accepted on standard rates based on the information provided by the complainant in the proposal form, resultantly, policy bearing No.14549449 dated 12.08.2011 was issued to the complainant.  The OP No.1&2 submitted that as per request of the complainant that he was mis-sold the policies, an investigation was got conducted by Op No.1&3 and accordingly, the entire amount paid by the complainant was refunded to him irrespective of the facts that all the said policies were issued by OP No.1&3 and the OP No.1&3 had to bear the expenses incurred in issuance of the policies and paid the necessary statutory charges and government taxes etc.  So the entire grievance of the complainant was resolved, as such nothing survives to the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant has already received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP No.1&3 on 19.06.2013.  Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8.       From the above discussion, we come to conclusion that complainant purchased four insurance policies in the year 2011 from OP No.1&3 and this fact has been admitted by OP No.1&3. The complainant came to know that these policies have been mis-sold to the complainant by OPs No.1 to 3 in connivance with each other, he filed complaint to OP No.1&2.  Consequently, the Op No.1&3 investigated the matter and the entire amount paid by the complainant towards the said insurance policies ordered to be refunded to the complainant in the year 2011.  The complainant admitted that he received the amount of three insurance policies from the OP No.1&3 in the year 2011.  But he did not receive the amount of fourth insurance policy i.e. of Rs.5,00,000/-, the amount of premium paid by the complainant for that policy.  As per record, the OPs did not refund the premium of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.  Rather, the Op No.1&3 retained the amount of premium of fourth policy of the complainant on the ground that complainant gave application Ex.C-5 for cancellation of his policy bearing No.14549449 and if the terms and conditions did not allow to cancel the same then to convert the same into single term policy or one time pay policy.  The complainant submitted that he never gave this letter Ex.C-5.  Op No.1&3 at the time of issuance of aforesaid insurance policy, obtained the signatures on blank papers and they created the same into that letter.  We have gone through photocopy of this document Ex.C-5, from which, it is clear that signatures of Bahadur Singh have been taken first, and this letter has been prepared later on as there is inordinate gap between that body of letter and signatures of Bahadur Singh.  Moreover, this letter is undated.  However, Op No.1&3 could not produce any cogent evidence as to when this letter was received from Bahadur Singh and when dairised in the office of OP No.1&3, as no dairy number is written nor OPs could state what action was taken on this letter?  Whether they cancelled that policy or whether they rejected the said application allegedly filed by Bahadur Singh.  However, the OP No.1&3 have admitted that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant on 19.06.2013.  As per certificate dated 15.07.2016 Ex.RW3/E issued by HDFC Bank.  So all this shows that OP No.1&3 retained this amount of the complainant from September 2011 to 19.06.2013 i.e. for about 1 ½ years, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1&3 qua the complainant.  OP No.1&3 are therefore, liable to pay interest to the complainant on this amount from September 2011 to 19.06.2013.          

9.       Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint and the OP No.1&3 are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount  Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant from September 2011 to 19.06.2013.  The Op No.1&3 are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to complainant as litigation expenses.

10.     The OP No.1&3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11.     Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  12.08.2016

 

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                    Member