STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

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

                                         V e r s u s

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

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

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against   order dated 1.2.2017 passed by  District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.390/2015.

Argued by:    Mr.Om Parkash Dhingra, appellant in person. 

 BEFORE:    JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT                                                   MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                     MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal  against  order dated 1.2.2017, vide which his complaint bearing No.390/2015 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short ‘the Forum’ only), directing the respondents/Opposite parties to pay 1/3^rd of the notional cash value to him towards amount due to him under the Policy known as Personal Pension Plan. The amount was ordered to be paid with interest. Besides as above, amounts towards compensation and litigation expenses were also awarded. The complainant was not satisfied with the order, hence this appeal.

2.             As per facts on record, the appellant/complainant purchased one policy under Personal Pension Plan. It is his case that at the time when Policy was purchased, he was made to understand that before maturity of the policy, notice would be sent to him asking his option either to invest the proceeds of the policy in annuities or to encash the maturity value by surrendering the same. Premium amount was paid for 10 years.  The complainant was in need of money due to illness of his wife and he wanted to encash his policy, upon receipt of pre-intimation from the OPs.  However, no such intimation was received.  He approached the OPs to know as to why intimation of maturity of the policy was not sent to him.  He was told that intimation was sent to him, through courier, at his correspondence address. No such letter was received by the complainant.  He took up the matter with the OPs for release of the amount.  However, he failed to get any positive response, which led him to file a consumer complaint before the Forum on 23.6.2015.

3.                Upon notice, reply was filed by the OPs.  It was stated that pre-intimation of the maturity was rightly sent.  The date of maturity was also known to the complainant from day one. Despite issuance of intimation, no option was exercised by the complainant. It was stated that on account of above, there was no deficiency in rendering service. 

4.            The Forum, after looking into the terms and conditions of the policy, observed as under ; 

“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 1/3rd of the notional cash value and the rest can be converted to annuities. Contrary to this, the Opposite Parties have failed to pay even 1/3rd 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.”

5.                 We have  gone through the paper book and found that the view taken up by the Forum is perfectly justified. It was rightly noticed that there was option to withdraw 1/3^rd amount of the notional cash value and the remaining amount was to be converted into annuities. However, nothing was done. The order passed by the Forum is based on the terms and conditions of the Policy.  We find  no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

6.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

7.               Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

8.                The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

30.03.2017