DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/209/2020

Date of Institution   : 16.09.2020

Date of Decision    : 24.05.2023

Surjit Kaur aged 72 years wife of Teja Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of Ward No. 5, Nagar Kaushal, Near Dairy Dashmesh Model School, Dhanaula-148105 District Barnala. (Mobile 78146-78163).    

                          …Complainant Versus

1. M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, C/o HDFC Bank Branch Dhanaula-148105 District Barnala. 

2. M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited H.O/Registered Office 11th Floor, Lodha Excellus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalkshmi, Mumbai-400011 through its Managing Director.    

                       …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. N.K. Garg counsel for complainant.

Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Surjit Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against M/s HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant had gone to HDFC Bank to purchase FDR and the staff told the complainant that she would have to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per year for five years and thereafter she would get double the deposited amount. The complainant is an illiterate lady and was inveigled by the staff. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited five installments of Rs. 50,000/- each for five years and the last installment was paid on 22.5.2019. Therefore, the policy matured on 21.5.2020. It is alleged that the opposite parties deposited Rs. 1,99,484.14 Paisa in the account of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 3,00,515.86 Paisa is still due against the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 many times but with no response. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 27.7.2020 through her counsel Sh. Naveen Kumar Garg Advocate, Barnala requesting to pay the claim but the opposite parties refused to pay the claim of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To pay Rs. 3,00,515.86 Paisa on account of repair charges. 

ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which requires voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure. Further, the complaint is time barred because the complainant purchased the policy in 2015 and the complaint is filed in 2020. The complainant has concealed material facts and documents, therefore the complainant is not entitled to any relief. It is further alleged that the complainant had obtained unit linked insurance policy, hence this Forum (now Commission) has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present case. Further, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint etc.  

4. On merits, it is denied that the complainant had gone to HDFC Bank for purchase of any FDR. It is further submitted that complainant chose to pay 5 premiums in total, thereby establishing that the complainant was well aware of the policy terms and the policy was surrendered after five years. The surrender value was paid as per the fund value on the date of surrender depending upon the market. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,99,484.14/- was paid on 18.6.2020 to the complainant. It is admitted to the extent that the complainant had paid the five installments of Rs. 50,000/- and the policy was surrendered by the complainant after five years. It is denied that Rs. 3,00,515.86/-is still due from the opposite parties to the complainant. So, the complainant cannot seek any other amount which is not permissible as per terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. To prove her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, copies of receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice Ex.C-7, postal receipts Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. Ld. Counsel for complainant has suffered the statement on 16.7.2021 that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered into evidence copy of policy dated 23.5.2015 Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of illustration of benefits Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of proposal form Ex.O.Ps-3, copy of addendum of Electronic proposal form Ex.O.Ps-4, copy of most important document Ex.OPs-5, copy of delivery status report Ex.O.Ps-6, copy of surrender processing form Ex.O.Ps-7, copy of passbook Ex.O.Ps-8, copy of date of birth declaration Ex.O.Ps-9, copy of payout and NEFT Checklist Ex.O.Ps-10, copy of letter dated 23.5.2015 Ex.O.Ps-11, copy of statement of account Ex.O.Ps-12, affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex.O.Ps-13 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties. 

8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had gone to HDFC Bank to purchase FDR and the staff of opposite parties told the complainant that if she would have to deposit Rs. 50,000/- per year for five years in that event she would get double of the deposited amount. It is further argued that the complainant deposited five installments of Rs. 50,000/- each for five years and the last installment was paid on 22.5.2019 (Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6) and the policy was matured on 21.5.2020. It is also argued that the opposite parties deposited Rs. 1,99,484.14 Paisa in the account of the complainant (Ex.C-2) and an amount of Rs. 3,00,515.86 Paisa is still due against the opposite parties. It is further argued that the complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 many times but of no use and thereafter the complainant sent legal notice dated 27.7.2020 (Ex.C-7) through her counsel Sh. Naveen Kumar Garg Advocate, Barnala requesting to pay the claim but the opposite parties refused to pay the claim of the complainant, so, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 

9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant had obtained unit linked insurance policy and paid five installments and was well aware of the policy terms and the policy was surrendered after five years. It is further argued that the surrender value was paid as per the fund value on the date of surrender depending upon the market and an amount of Rs. 1,99,484.14/- was paid on 18.6.2020 to the complainant which is admitted by the complainant (as per Ex.C-2). It is further argued that nothing is still due from the opposite parties to the complainant and the complainant cannot seek any other amount which is not permissible as per terms and conditions of the policy, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

10. Perusal of the policy Ex.O.Ps-1 shows that the complainant had purchased HDFC SL Pro Growth Flexi Policy No. 17624603 on 22.5.2015. The annual premium of the policy was Rs. 50,000/- and the sum assured of the policy was 3,50,000/-. Further, the policy term was 10 years with frequency annual and the maturity date of policy was 22.5.2025 and the final premium due date was 22.5.2024. It is admitted fact by both the parties that the complainant paid only five installments of Rs. 50,000/- and the last installment was paid on 22.5.2019. The complainant surrendered the policy on 12.6.2020 by submitting surrender processing form with documents and original policy (as per Ex.O.Ps-7) after paid the five installments. However, the policy term was 10 years. Accordingly, the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs. 1,99,484.14/- on 18.6.2020 to the complainant (as per Ex.C-2) on account of surrender value on the date of surrender depending upon the market. We have perused the policy Ex.O.Ps-1 and according to the  terms and conditions in Sub clause 3 of clause 7 (Surrender) it is mentioned that “If the policy is surrendered on or after the completion of the five policy years, the surrender value will be paid to you”. Further, in clause 5 of clause 7 it is mentioned that “Once any surrender payment has been made, the policy terminates and no further benefits are payable”. The opposite parties has proved that the policy was surrendered after five years and the surrender value was paid as per the fund value on the date of surrender depending upon the market. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,99,484.14/- was paid on 18.6.2020 to the complainant because the complainant surrender the said policy on 12.6.2020. On the other hand, the complainant has miserably failed to place on record any cogent evidence to prove the fact that she is entitled for the another amount of Rs. 3,00,515.86/- from the opposite parties. 

11. So, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint has no merits and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. 

12. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       24th Day of May, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member