DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of April 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/12/2011
(C.C.No.1/2012)
Panjena Sadasivan,
S/o.Late T.N.Raman Nair,
Ushasree,
Peruvemba (PO),
Palakkad – 678 531 - Complainant
(By Party in Person)
V/s
1.Mr.Abhilash Kuriyan,
Asst.Manager,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
Branch Office, 2nd Floor,
Udaya Towers, West Fort Road,
Palakkad – 678 001
2.Mr.Ajit Surve,
Customer Services Department,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
5th Floor, Eureka Towers,
Mindspace Complex Link Road,
Malad (West) Mumbai – 400 064
3.Ms.Subhashini.S
Customer Services Department,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
5th Floor, Eureka Towers,
Mindspace Complex Link Road,
Malad (West) Mumbai – 400 064 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran &
Saji Isaac.K.J)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
The agent of the opposite parties named Mr.Sijet Thattil introduced a unit linked young star plan to the complainant. The broad features of which as explained by the agent is that the complainant has to pay HDFC an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year for 3 years and thereafter can stop payment. The agent also advised that the benefit will go to the complainant’s son who is aged 9 years at that time. It was assured by the said agent that in the year 2018 the complainant’s son will get approximately an amount of Rs.26 lakhs. Agent never said that it is an insurance Policy for the complainant, instead told that it is good to include the name of the complainant also to get health insurance coverage and for this purpose a medical checkup was also done. Accordingly complainant paid premium of Rs.50,000/- for 3 years. Thereafter on 6/9/11 complainant received a letter from opposite parties stating that the fund value of the policy as on 5/9/11 is Rs.54,369/-. Complainant was shocked to receive the letter as he has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in total. On enquiry it was informed that an amount of Rs.2,000/- will be deducted every month from the said amount being handling and other charges as per the rules and regulations. Being afraid that he will not be getting anything after few months, complainant requested for refund of the amount. On 23/9/11 complainant received an amount of Rs.54,369/-. Complainant has undergone mental agony and tension on account of the acts of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- being the amount deposited along with interest @10% from 2007 along with cost and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
Opposite parties filed version. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had taken the policy in the year 2007. As per the policy premium has to be paid annually for a term of 12 years and the final premium due is on 27/3/2018. The policy will lapse if the premium is not paid as stated. Further the letter attached to the policy has the option to return the policy within 15 days if he is not agreeing to any of the provisions stated in the policy. Complainant has not exercised the option to return. According to opposite parties, by accepting the policy, complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of the policy. Opposite parties denies the say of the complainant that the agent advised that it is for the benefit of the complainant’s son. It is also denied that the agent suppressed that it is an insurance policy intended to the complainant. According to opposite parties, contract of insurance is a contract based on the terms and conditions of the policy which are binding on both the parties. According to the policy, if any premium remains unpaid 15 days after due date, policy became lapsed. Then the unutilized fund value at the date of lapse less the surrender charge and other charges as specified in the policy will be paid to the policy holder. Complainant was refunded the amount accordingly. According to opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavit, Ext.A1 to A8 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No1 & 2
The definite case of the complainant is that he was canvassed by the agent named Sijet Thattil of the opposite parties to join a unit linked young star plan, complainant was made to believe that he need to pay only Rs.50,000/- for 3 years and his son being a beneficiary will get 26 lakhs approximately in the year 2018. Contrary to the promise he was paid Rs54,369/-in the year 2011.
Opposite party admits the policy. But as per the policy it is an unit linked plan. The complainant was paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy itself.
Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. Ext.A1 series reveals that the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- each during the year 2007, 2008 and 2009. Ext.B1, copy of the policy evidences the fact that it is an unit linked policy, policy term is 12 years and premium frequency is annual etc. It is also stated in the policy under the head illustrative benefits on surrender as follows:
“This contract is designed for long term savings and is not designed for short term investment. Should you need to surrender your policy in the short terms, any surrender benefits may be less than the premium you have paid”.
The insurance is a contract between the insurer and the insured and hence the parties are bound by its terms and conditions. The amount paid by the opposite parties on surrender is as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Hence we are not in a position to order refund of Rs.1,50,000/- as prayed for. But we find that there is another major issue which has to be looked into seriously. Now a days the new generation insurance companies are appointing agents for canvassing their policies. Often these agents misrepresent to the ignorant consumers as regard to the benefits of the policy and make them join the policy without properly disclosing true facts. In the present case also complainant has specifically pleaded that the agent of opposite parties has misrepresented regarding the benefits of the plan which the complainant has entered into. Opposite party has no case that the said person is not their agent. It is true that complainant has not taken any steps to implead the agent in the party array or examine him as a witness, but opposite party being a contesting party can take steps to examine their employee. That has not been done. Further during argument complainant has stated that he is a retired aged person and he will not enter into such plan if he was aware of the fact that the premium payment was 12 years. The act of the complainant in payment of premium up to 3 years and keeping mum will give force to his argument that he was mislead by the agent of the opposite parties. Section 2(1)(r) clause (ii), (iv) & (vi) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the instances of unfair trade practice as follows:
(ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade
(iv) represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;
(vi) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services;
Here we find that the agent of the opposite parties has committed unfair trade practice for which the opposite party, as principal is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of April 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt dated 3/3/07 for Rs.50,000/- issued by HDFC
Ext.A2 – Receipt dated 19/4/08 for Rs.50,000/- issued by HDFC
Ext.A3 – Receipt dated 25/3/09 for Rs.50,000/- issued by HDFC
Ext.A4 – Letter dated 6/9/11 issued by HDFC to the complainant
Ext.A5 – Letter dated 21/10/11 issued by HDFC to the complainant
Ext.A6 – Annual statement issued by HDFC
Ext.A7 – Annual statement issued by HDFC
Ext.A8 - Annual statement issued by HDFC
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 –True copy of Policy
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
