Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/390/2015

Mr. Om Parkash Dhingra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

01 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/390/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	23/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	01/02/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Om Parkash Dhingra S/o Late Sh.N.L. Dhingra, R/o #1163, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

1]   M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 119-120, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 43, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

2]   M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011, through its Customer Incharge.

 

……… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.S.S. PANESAR              PRESIDENT

                MRS.SURJEET KAUR          MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

 

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant had purchased one policy under “Personal Pension Plan” in the year 2002. At that time, the Complainant was given to understand that before the maturity of the policy, he would be sent pre-intimation and option letter either to invest the proceeds of the policy in annuities or to encash the maturity value by surrendering the same. The Complainant regularly paid the premiums and waited patiently for more than 10 years for the pre-intimation. The Complainant was in need of money due to illness of his wife and was expecting to encash his policy upon receipt of pre-intimation from the Opposite Parties. However, failing to receive the pre-intimation and option letter, when the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties, he was informed that the pre-intimation was sent to him through courier, on his correspondence address. Since the Complainant never received any such letter, he accordingly took up the matter with the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that the Company was not duty bound to issue the pre-intimation to the Complainant, as he was aware of the same from the very beginning when he had availed of the policy. Notwithstanding, the same was duly issued to the Complainant. However, the Complainant did not choose any of the options that was available to him. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for Parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties. 

 

7.      On perusal of the Policy Schedule placed on record by the Complainant as Annexure C-1, we find that the basic benefit payable on survival to the vesting date. The said Clause is reproduced hereinbelow:-

 

“At the Vesting Date, the policy attains a notional cash value, which is made up of a basic sum assured of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees One Lakh) plus any attaching bonuses. Subject to the prevailing legislation and regulations, part of this can be paid to the policy holder as a lump sum and the rest converted to an annuity at the rates, terms and conditions then offered by HDFC Standard Life. Alternatively, if it is permitted by the prevailing regulations, the notional lump sum can be used to buy an annuity with any other company who will accept such business.”

 

8.      The Complainant has approached Opposite Parties time and again to get the full maturity proceeds payable on the vesting date, but the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant vide letter dated 24.12.2012 (Pg.No.24 of the paper book) that the he has the option to withdraw maximum 1/3^rd of the notional cash value and the rest can be converted to annuities. Contrary to this, the Opposite Parties have failed to pay even 1/3^rd of the notional cash value to the Complainant, which was payable to him on the vesting date. Non-payment of the same to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service.

 

9.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are is directed:-

 

[a]  To pay 1/3^rd of the notional cash value to the Complainant interest @9% per annum from the vesting date and to convert the rest of the payable proceeds, along with bonus, to annuities, on receipt of requisite option from the Complainant;

 

[b]  Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [c] above.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st February, 2017                                           

Sd/-                                      

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”