IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.77/2011 (Filed on 17.03.2011)
Between:
Roshan Thomas,
Prumchuttil House
K.P. Road, Central Adoor,
Pathanamthitta – 691 523.
(By Adv. Roshan Thomas) ….. Complainant.
And:
1. M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Ltd.,
Corporate office at Trade Star, 2nd Floor,
A Wing Junction, Kondivita, M.V. Road,
Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 059, Maharashtra, India,
rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Mr. Amitabh Choudhari,
Managing Director/CEO,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
-do. –do.
3. Ms. Sailaja. B, Associate Vice President, Customer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
-do. –do.
4. Mr. Manoj Raman, Sr. Manager-Customer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
-do. –do.
5. Mr. Atul Juvle, Principal Grievance Officer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
-do. –do.
(By Adv. Saji Isaac. K.J for O.Ps 1,2,3,4 & 5)
6. Branch Manager,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
Adoor Tower, Adoor,
Pathanamthitta -691523. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant Roshan Thomas, Prumchuttil House, K.P. Road, Central Adoor has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: Complainant is an Advocate by Profession. 1st opposite party in this case is a company engaged in various insurance policies. Opposite parties 2 to 6 are the employees engaged in the affairs of the 1st opposite party. On 15.07.2007 the 6th opposite party approached the complainant and encouraged her to invest some amount with the opposite parties and assured that the amount invested would be similar to a fixed deposit and it will return after 3 years with interest at the rate of 12%. Believing this, complainant deposited an amount of ` 20,000 in Unit Linked Young Star Plan. Fore that a receipt for ` 20,000 with policy number 11207713 was issued b y the opposite party. On expiry of 3rd year the complainant contacted with 6th opposite party for the refund of the amount deposited. Thereafter opposite parties issued a cheque for ` 6,483 vide number 688976 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mumbai. According to the complainant she has to get an amount of ` 27,200 being the deposited amount and its interest at the rate of 12%. Complainant has not encashed the cheque.
3. In these circumstances, complainant requested opposite party to send a calculation statement. But opposite parties purposefully evaded the request. Complainant issued a legal notice on 12.11.2010. But they replied that the policy was lapsed 2 years ago and amount given is the surrender value of the policy. The above said act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for getting a total amount of ` 42,200 with future interest.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 5 filed a common version. 6th opposite party is exparte. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had given a proposal for taking the policy and on the basis of the proposal, a policy was issued to the complainant. Complainant joined the policy after being aware of the terms and conditions and after understanding the nature of the policy. Moreover she is not a common lady but an advocate. As per the opted plan a policy was issued to her. Policy holder is liable to the terms and conditions of the policy. Complainant had paid only the first premium. Hence the policy was terminated due to the non-payment of the subsequent premiums. Opposite party sent a letter for revival of the policy to the complainant, but she did not responded. Complainant’s policy lapsed because of the acts of the complainant. So she is not entitled to any further benefits. Opposite parties contention is that if the premium amount is not paid, the policy will be terminated and the surrender value will be refunded. Surrender value will be less than the premium paid. In this case, they have returned the surrender value to the complainant. In the circumstances, there is no unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties, and they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and the proof affidavit of opposite parties and Exts. A1 to A6 series and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
7. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that she had paid ` 20,000 to the opposite party as a fixed deposit, on the basis of the canvassing of the 6th opposite party. At the time of deposit, 6th opposite party told the complainant that the deposited amount and its interest at the rate of 12% will be returned after 3 years. They also issued a receipt for the deposit. After 3 years when the complainant demanded the deposited amount, opposite parties issued a cheque of ` 6,483 by saying that the deposited amount is the 1st premium of the Unit Linked Young Star Scheme and the said policy was lapsed due to the non-payment of subsequent premiums and as per the terms and conditions of the policy if the policy is lapsed the policy holder is entitled to get only the surrender value of the remitted premium and the amount of ` 6,483 paid to the complainant by way of cheque is the surrender value of the complainant’s premium. According to the complainant, the amount given by the opposite party is against the promise and assurance given by the 6th opposite party and hence the above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with seven documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6 series. Ext.A1 is the receipt for ` 20,000 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the cheque dated 24.08.2010 for ` 6,483 drawn on HDFC Bank issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant in the name of the 6th opposite party demanding the payment of ` 20,000 and its interest. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt of Ext.A3 and Ext.A5 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A3. Ext.A6 is the letter dated 23.11.2010 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A6(a) is the acknowledgment letter of Ext.A3 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not deposited any amount as fixed deposit with them, whereas he had joined in a policy in opposite parties Unit Linked Young Star Scheme in which the complainant had paid an amount of ` 20,000 as the 1st premium. As per the terms and conditions of the said policy, the policy will be lapsed if the subsequent premium was not paid. Due to the non-payment of the subsequent premium by the complainant this policy was lapsed. In case, the policy is lapsed the surrender value of the premium paid by a policy holder will be calculated and returned to the policy holders. Accordingly, the surrender value of the complainant’s premium is calculated as ` 6,483 and it was returned to the complainant. The complainant had joined in the scheme after understanding the terms and conditions of the scheme and he had submitted the proposal form and other connected documents with his signature before taking the policy. Therefore, the complainant’s allegation is baseless and she is not entitled to get anything more, other than the amount given by the opposite parties vide the cheque issued by them.
10. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, an authorized officer of opposite parties filed a proof in lieu of his chief examination along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the document produced is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form and connected documents.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the amount deposited by the complainant to the opposite parties. The crucial question is whether the amount paid by the complainant is a fixed deposit or the first premium of the policy. According to the complainant, the payment is made as a fixed deposit, whereas the opposite parties contention is that the payment is made as the 1st premium of a policy. Opposite parties are relying on Ext.B1 document for substantiating there contention that complainant was well aware about the scheme and she had paid the amount after understanding and accepting the terms and conditions of the scheme. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of a bundle of papers. The signature of the complainant seen in certain pages of the said document is denied by the complainant. Complainant also deposed before the Forum that the handwriting seen in Ext.B1 is not of her. These two aspects were not either disputed by the opposite party or they have not taken any steps for disproving the complainant’s stand. Moreover, the opposite parties have not enlightened this Forum to substantiate their contention by pointing out any particular portion of Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of a bundle of papers having so many separate sheets. Mere production of a bundle of papers is not sufficient for establishing a case in favour of the party submitting that paper. So we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the opposite party based on Ext.B1 document. Further the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that, before admitting the complainant in the policy they have given the policy conditions and the various terms and conditions of the policy was brought to the notice of the complainant or they have not adduced any evidence to show that they have issued a notice to the complainant for the revival of the policy or any intimation for the payment of the subsequent premiums. On the basis of the aforesaid finding we come to the conclusion that opposite parties collected the amount from the complainant without disclosing the real facts. If the real facts are brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of canvassing, the complainant may not opt to take the scheme of the opposite parties. Therefore, we find that the non-payment of the complainant’s amount is an unfair trade practice and a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint can be allowed with certain modifications:
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications, thereby the opposite parties are directed to pay ` 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant with 12% interest per annum from 04.08.2010 till this date within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 14% interest from today till the realization of whole amount. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, no order for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9th day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Roshan Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Receipt for ` 20,000 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A2 : Cheque dated 24.08.2010 for ` 6,483 drawn on HDFC Bank issued
by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Copy of notice issued by the complainant in the name of
the 6th opposite party.
A4 : Postal receipt of Ext.A3
A5 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A3.
A6 : Letter dated 23.11.2010 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
A6(a) : Acknowledgment letter of Ext.A3 issued by the opposite party in
the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form and connected documents.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Roshan Thomas, Prumchuttil House, K.P. Road, Central Adoor,
Pathanamthitta – 691 523.
(2) Managing Director, M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Ltd.,
Corporate office at Trade Star, 2nd Floor, A Wing Junction,
Kondivita, M.V. Road, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 059, Maharashtra, India,
(3) Mr. Amitabh Choudhari, Managing Director/CEO,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance, -do. –do.
(4) Ms. Sailaja. B, Associate Vice President, Customer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance, -do. –do.
(5) Mr. Manoj Raman, Sr. Manager-Customer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance, -do. –do.
(6) Mr. Atul Juvle, Principal Grievance Officer,
M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance, -do. –do.
(7) Branch Manager, M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance,
Adoor Tower, Adoor, Pathanamthitta -691523.
(8) The Stock File.
