Smt.G.Vasanthakumari, President
Complainant’s case is that, the complainant is a consumer coming within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, first opposite party is the certified financial consultant of HDFC Standard Life Insurance, second opposite party is the Branch Manger, HDFC Standard Life Insurance and third opposite party is the Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance, Head Office, Mumbai, that the first opposite party approached the complainant in his house on 25.04.2008 and explained about HDFC Standard Life Insurance and about its benefits and believing the words of the first opposite party that if he remits Rs.1,25,000/- after three years he will get back Rs.1,25,000/- along with 15 % to 40 % according to the share value, he issued cheque bearing no.526568 for Rs.1,25,000/-to be drawn at State Bank of Travancore, Anchal Branch, that on 10.05.08 he got a premium receipt showing the receipt of cheque amount and his Policy No. as 11858915, that premium receipt was entrusted by the first opposite party to the complainant at his residence, that after three months on getting information that he has to remit Rs.1,25,000/- quarterly, he approached the second opposite party and then he came to understand that he has to remit Rs.1,25,000/- quarterly as per the terms and conditions of policy, that he informed the second opposite party that he has no background to remit such a huge amount quarterly and demanded back Rs.1,25,000/- remitted by him along with interest but the second opposite party has not cared to accept his demand, so he approached the third opposite party and from there also he has not obtained any favourable decision, that thereafter he approached the first opposite party and requested him to get back Rs.1,25,000/- from the second opposite party along with interest but he has pacified him by stating excuses, that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
(3)
The first opposite party remained exparte to the proceedings, second and third opposite parties filed joint version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the allegation that the first opposite party approached the complainant and induced to enrol in the scheme by stating that the policy requires only one time payment of Rs.1,25,000/- etc is utter false and against actual facts, that the first opposite party who is the financial consultant of the company has informed all the terms and conditions to the complainant, and it is only after that the complainant signed and submitted the proposal form and the policy is issued in his favour, that the above proposal form contains all the terms and conditions of the policy, that there is no question of suppression of any terms as alleged, that the policy document was sent to the complainant by registered post with acknowledgment due, that the said registered cover was received by the complainant on 21.05.2008 as per the endorsements on the postal acknowledgment card received back by the opposite parties, that this fact is purposefully suppressed in the complaint with a malafide motive of making out a false case against the opposite parties, that it further reveals that the complainant was well informed about the policy details which he is now denying without any basis, that the complainant sought for more time to remit the second premium of Rs.1,25,000/- when the first opposite party contacted him for the same, that he cited some financial crisis and requested for time for making the remittance, that later the complainant called the first opposite party and informed that he is unable to make the payment and requested back the first premium already paid by him, that the complainant was also informed that he is in Jail in Pondicherry and he is in utter financial crisis, that the opposite parties who are only the employees of the company can’t and will not give any assurance to the complainant in contradiction to the terms of the policy, that the opposite parties have not committed unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged and the complaint is only to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties.
(4)
The points for consideration are:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Relief and costs.
For complainant PW1 was examined and marked Ext.P1. For the opposite parties DW1 was examined and marked Ext.D1.
Point No .1
According to the complainant the first opposite party who is a certified financial consultant of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance approached the complainant on 25.04.08 and induced him to enroll in their scheme by stating that the policy requires only one time payment of Rs.1,25,000/- and by three months it will increase thrice and as such he has handed over cheque bearing number 526568 dated : 10/05/08 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in the hands of the first opposite party. The first opposite party on 10/05/08 handed over Ext.P1 receipt to the complainant at his residence. But after three months he got information that he has to remit Rs.1,25,000/- quarterly and knowing that since he has no economic background to pay such huge sum quarterly he approached the second opposite party to return the amount remitted by him with interest but they have not cared to do so. He has approached the third opposite party also but was in vain and his specific case is that it is an unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service and prayed for a decree directing the opposite parties to return Rs.1,25,000/- with interest, compensation Rs.25,000/- and cost of the proceedings. But according to the opposite parties 2 and 3, the first opposite party who is the sales person of the
(5)
company has informed all the terms and conditions to the complainant and it is only after that the complainant signed and submitted the proposal form and the policy is issued in his favour. There is no question of suppression of any terms as alleged and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged and the complaint is only to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the opposite parties 2 and 3.
The complainant as PW1, would swear before the Forum in tune with the allegations in the complaint. He would swear before the Forum that First op insurance policy ¨ð ˆ¤ú¢µ¤¾ ó¢óñ¹þ œúº¤ ļ¢¶¤©Ù¡ ? ‡¼¤« œúº¤ ļ¢¶¢¿. …›¢´® ú¡« ˆ®ø¡ö® 󢙬¡Ÿ¬¡ö»¡Ã®. Further down he would swear before the Forum that first op …¨üú ó¢ô§ö®Ä›¤«, öŸ´¡ñ›¤« »×¤« ðÄ¢›¡ý ó¡ð¢µ¤ ©›¡´¡¨Ä ‡¸¢¶¤ ¨ˆ¡Ð¤·¤. Further down he would swear before the Forum that …©¼¡Ð® ‡× ±œ£»¢ð« »¡±Ä©» ƒ¾¥ …¼¡Ã® œúº¢ñ¤¼Ä®. Even though PW1 was cross examined at length, nothing was brought out in his cross examination to discredit the witness. His specific case in the complaint and in the box is that, on 25.04.08 first opposite party came to his house and informed him about the HDFC Standard Life Insurance stating that the policy requires only one time payment of Rs.1, 25,000/- and by three months it will increase thrice and believing the words of the first opposite party he handed over a cheque bearing no.526568 dated : 10/05/08 for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the first opposite party and on 10/05/08 first opposite party has given to him Ext.P1 premium receipt and after three months when he received information that he has to remit Rs.1,25,000/- quarterly, he approached opposite parties 2 and three to get back the premium remitted along with interest. At this juncture, it is to be noted that first opposite party remains exparte to the proceedings who is the person approached the
(6)
complaint narrating the conditions of payment. Since the case of the complainant is that the first opposite party has not narrated about the quarterly remittance of premium the best witness in this case is the first opposite party who was not examined before the Forum. According to the complainant he handed over the cheque to the first opposite party and first opposite party handed over Ext.P1 to him. Further relying on Ext.D1 proposal form the case of the opposite parties 2 & 3 is that all the conditions are narrated in Ext.D1 and after reading the same and understanding the same the complainant enrolled as a policy holder and now says that he is illiterate which cannot be believed. Further, it is argued that the complainant is a business man, he has got a chartered accountant for filing returns and also has an accountant and so his case that he signed the proposal form without reading and understanding the same cannot be believed. As I have already mentioned the complainant’s case is that he has studied only up to 6th standard and without reading and understanding the policy conditions signed the proposal form believing the words of the first opposite party. Even if, he has got chartered accountant on going through Ext.D1 proposal form, we can see that it is a printed form, in which the words are micro scopic and cannot be understood by anybody. Whether the first opposite party has read over the same to the complainant is to be spoken to by the first opposite party. But as we have already mentioned he was not examined before the Forum. Further the opposite party has a case that the complainant sought for some more time to remit the second premium and informed the first opposite party that he is unable to make the payment and requested to return the first premium paid by him and it is also informed that he is in jail in Pondicherry and he is under financial crisis. But the above argument is denied by the complainant. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the same. We have already mentioned, the best evidence in this case is lacking. The first opposite party ought to have examined before the Forum to bring the truth
(7)
before the Forum. With the available evidence we are of the view that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Points found accordingly.
In the result, the consumer case is decreed in part directing the opposite parties to return Rs.1,25,000/- remitted by the complainant with interest at 6 % per annum to the complainant and also Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Since there is no evidence to show that he sustained financial loss and mental agony his prayer for compensation is rejected.
Dated this the 18th day of February 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Saji
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Receipt issued by first opposite party
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Sunil .B.Sankar
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Policy and proposal Form
