BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.69/14.
Date of instt.: 28.03.2014.
Date of Decision: 11.12.2015.
Balkar Singh S/o Sh. Gurmel Singh r/o Village Kharoudi, near Gurudawara Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s. H.D.F.C. Bank, Cheeka, Tehsi Guhla, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., C/o H.D.F.C. S.L.Panipat-G.T.Road, Branch, Ist Floor, Lalbatti Chowk, near Ludhiana Shawl Market, G.T.Road, Panipat.
3. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Sandoz House, 2nd Floor Shiv Sagar Estate Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Mumbai Maharashtra, Code-00455784.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. S.K.Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite party.No.2.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for Ops No.1 & 3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he duly insured with the Op No.1 his minor son Harman Singh vide proposal form through Op No.1. It is alleged that the proposal form of the complainant for his minor son Harman Singh was accepted vide letter dt. 10.01.2013 bearing policy No.15720113 with a copy of proposal form having client ID No.60113736, date of commencement of policy 07.01.2013 under H.D.F.C. Children’s Double Benefit Plan and has also deposited the premium amount. It is further alleged that unfortunately Harman, minor son of complainant expired on 23.05.2013 at Village Kharoudi. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of Op No.1 for the benefit of above-said policy but the office of Op No.1 did not give any response or reply to the complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum. Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; jurisdiction; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant purchased a policy i.e. “HDFC Children’s Double Benefit Plan” from the answering Op having policy No.15720113 wherein all the terms and conditions were explained to him at the time of taking the policy. The beneficiary in the said policy was his son Harman Singh. The policy had premium payment term of 10 years and the annual premium was Rs.14,550/. As per 2011(1) CLT 485 (SC) and 2009(4) CLT 313 (SC), it has been held that the terms and conditions of the policy are bidning between the parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 and 3 made statement on 30.10.2014 that the written statement filed on behalf of Op No.2 may also be read on behalf of Ops No.1 & 3.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence on 06.07.2015. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.RA to Ex.RI and closed evidence on 06.07.2015. Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 3 made statement that the evidence tendered by Op No.2 be also read on the part of Ops No.1 & 3.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. It is stated by ld. Counsel for the complainant that the complainant has duly insured his minor son Harman Singh with the Ops at Cheeka for the future of his child vide policy No.15720113 with a copy of proposal form having client ID 60113736 and the date of commencement of policy is 07.01.2013 under “H.D.F.C. Children’s Double Benefit Plan”. He further stated that Harman Singh expired on 23.05.2013. The complainant had visited the office of Ops for the benefit of above-said policy but the Ops are not giving any response or reply to the complaint. The Ops have deceived the complainant and also misappropriated the premium amount of the complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops stated that the complainant had purchased the policy in question i.e. “H.D.F.C. Children’s Double Benefit Plan” but in the said policy, Harman Singh, son of complainant was the nominee/beneficiary. He further stated that the complainant had insured himself with the Ops and not his son Harman Singh and Harman Singh, the son of complainant was only the nominee/beneficiary in the said policy. He further stated that the policy had premium payment term of 10 years and annual premium was Rs.14,550/-. He further stated that according to the standard terms & conditions of the policy i.e. “H.D.F.C. Children’s Double Benefit Plan”, the policy-holder had three options:
a) To change the beneficiary of the policy to another child
b) To surrender the policy and take the surrender value of the policy.
c) To continue the policy and take the benefits of the policy as per the schedule of the policy.
7. It is not disputed that the policy No.15720113 i.e. Ex.C7 was issued to the complainant by the Ops but as per complainant, his son was insured by the said policy Ex.C7. The policy Ex.C7 clearly indicates that the complainant Balkar Singh was insured vide the policy in question Ex.C7 and not his son Harman Singh, whereas Harman Singh has been specifically mentioned in the beneficiary schedule. As Harman Singh was minor on the date of issuance of policy, so, his mother Suman Devi was also shown in the beneficiary schedule of the policy. Further, the proposal form was duly signed by the complainant Balkar Singh in which it is clearly mentioned that the life of complainant was insured and Harman Singh was the beneficiary/nominee. So, it cannot be said that the Ops had wrongly issued the policy in the name of complainant instead of his son. As mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant had the three options mentioned above i.e. a) To hange the beneficiary of the policy to another child b) To surrender the policy and take the surrender value of the policy c) To continue the policy and take the benefits of the policy as per the schedule of the policy. But the complainant was adamant for benefit of the policy. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that it was the complainant, who was insured vide the policy Ex.C7 and not Harman Singh, the son of complainant. The Ops have rightly declined the claim of complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.11.12.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
