Haryana

StateCommission

A/571/2015

HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MINU DEVI - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN THATAI

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                             

                                                         First Appeal No.571 of 2015

Date of Institution: 07.07.2015

                                                           Date of Decision: 05.01.2016

 

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, 11^th Floor Lodha Excelus, Appolo Mill Compound N.M. Joshi road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011, though its Branch Office Manager,Ashoka Plaza, Delhi road, Rohtak.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Minu Devi W/o Sandeep Kumar S/o Azad Singh permanent residing at H.No.53 ward no.5 Narnaund, Distt. Hissar at present at present C/o Lakh Raj, H.No.387, Ward No.20, Bhatiya Nagar Behind Puran Clinic, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad.

                                                …..Respondent

 

CORAM:                    Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                                                          

Present:                     Shri  Nitin Thatai, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                                    ShriN.K.Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                               O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. – respondent/ OP is in appeal against the Order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Rohtak, whereby the complaint of Minu Devi - Complainant has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are in the year 2013 the agent of the OP by misguiding and false assurance of providing loan facility sold five policies to the complainant and her husband. The complainant had submitted the documents for the sanction of the loan. After waiting for three months, no loan was sanctioned and the agent of the OP kept the complainant on false assurance of sanctioning of loan within short period. Meanwhile the husband of the complainant – appellant met with an accident and when they approached the OP, they came to know that there was no such scheme for providing loan facility. Thereafter, on 05.07.2013, they applied for cancellation of the policies, but the OP refused to accede to the request.
3. According to the OP, the complainants had themselves applied for two policies and submitted two complete proposal forms alongwith premium amount; hence, the OP were not liable to refund any amount.  According to them, no such assurance was given regarding the loan facilities to the complainants. Further, as the complainant submitted two proposal forms, OP had no alternative except to issue the policies to the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  However, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint on 18.05.2015.

4.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, all the transactions between the parties took place at Hisar i.e. both the proposal forms were filled in by the complainant at Hisar, premium was also paid at Hisar and the policies were issued from Mumbai. We find that in para No.7 of the written statement filed by the OP, the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was specifically raised. Not only that, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (2010) 1 SCC 135 Sonic Surigal Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., in which it was held that only that District Forum/ State Commission shall have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide a complaint in the territorial jurisdiction of which, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant.   Despite all this, it escaped the notice of learned District Forum and no finding one way or the other was recorded in the impugned order.
6. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned District Forum, Rohtak by granting liberty to the complainant to seek his legal remedy, if so advised, by approaching the appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the dispute. The complainant may seek exemption / condonation of delay of the period spent in seeking remedy before the Consumer Fora, by applying to the appropriate Forum.    
7. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

January 05th, 2016                    Urvashi Agnihotri                                   R.K.Bishnoi,                                                     Member                                                Judicial Member                                                Addl. Bench                                          Addl.Bench                  

 

S.K.