Complaint filed on: 10-12-2012

                                                      Disposed on: 28-06-2014

BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2419/2012

DATED THIS THE 28^th JUNE 2014

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.JANARDHANA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                                 S. S. Lakshmi                                                                                              

                                                    28, 1^st Main, 4^th Phase,

                                                East of Katriguppa,

                                                BSK 3^rd Stage,

                                                Bangalore-85

V/s

Opposite parties: -       

1.   The Branch Manager ,      M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, 1^st and 2^nd floor, 5^th block, Sit no.C1, KHB colony, Near Vinayaka temple, Koramangala, Bangalore-95

2.   The Chairman,

M/s. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Customer Service department, 11^th Floor, Lodha Excelur, Apollo mills compound, NM Joshi Mar, Mahalakshmi, Church Circle gate, Mumbai-11

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs no.1 and 2, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.50,000=00 and to pay Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation and to pay Rs.10,000=00 as interest and cost of conveyance incurred and other cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The 1^st OP sent their representative by name Mr.Amarnth to complainant’s residence on 27-6-2012 with terms and conditions of HDFC SL Sampoorn Samridhi. As per the terms, the complainant had proposed to take a policy by paying a cheque bearing no.730399 dated 29-6-2012 for Rs.50,000=00 to the 1^st OP. The 1^st promised the complainant while taking the proposal form that the receipt would come by courier and the acceptance of proposal i.e. policy bond would be sent within 15 days from the date of encashment of cheque. The complainant got the receipt from HDFC life insurance bearing no.C0452864 dated 5-7-2012 from 1^st OP on 6-7-2012 sent by courier. The complainant waited for the policy from 1^st OP by accepting the terms and conditions as promised to the complainant on 21^st of 22^nd July 2012. Since the policy is not received within due date the complainant contacted over phone about the receipt of policy during the second week of Aug.12. The 1^st OP promised every time that the policy has been sent by courier and requested the complainant for 20 days time and the 1^st OP said he would verify at their end whether the policy has been delivered or not within 20 days. The complainant waited till    10-9-2012 and contacted the 1^st OP on 10-9-2012 & one Mr.Sunil employee of the 1^st OP confirmed that the policy would be sent later and requested the complainant to wait for 20 days & the OP no.1 promised that he will be in touch with the complainant without fail but did not contact till 7-10-2012. The complainant with great anxiety had handed over a letter dated 8-10-2012 thro her father to 1^st OP office at Koramangala, Bangalore to know the status of the policy, the complainant’s father was handled by one of their team leaders and she had asked one week time again to get back the matter. The complainant received various telephone calls from 1^st OP and the 2^nd OP requesting to give 15 days time again. The 2^nd OP has requested in their letter dated 15-10-2012 that 2^nd OP needs 14 days time to verify the status of the policy. The OP sent a letter dated 23-10-2012 by courier post and it was received by complainant on 27-10-2012. The 2^nd OP was stating that the policy bond was sent to Proposer by Sri Chakra Transect Courier thro consignment note no.2351343 and it was received by complainant on 8-8-2012 which is utterly false, the 2^nd OP attached an indemnity bond for duplicate policy, this letter clearly shows the service deficiency of the OP and the statement made by the 2^nd OP is utterly false and should be put into strict proof. The complainant had undergone a lot of excitement and anxiety due to the false statements made by 1^st OP and 2^nd OP respectively. It is the duty of the 1^st OP to make sure that original policy bond has been received by the proposer within the promised time. There is a deficiency of service by the Ops no.1 and 2 respectively. Moreover the day when complainant’s father visited the 1^st OP office on 8-10-2012 the policy bound could have been handed over by the OP or sent it to the complainant without any delay. The complainant addressed a letter dated 2-11-2012 informing that the original policy bond is not received till date and there is no need to request for duplicate policy bond. The complainant requested 2^nd OP to send the proof of delivery within 10 days and if the reply to the letter dated 2-11-2012 is not received within 10 days the proposal stands automatically cancelled. The 2^nd OP sent a letter dated 19-11-2012 requesting the complainant to give 14 days time to investigate at their end. In spite of having adequate time for the Ops from 2-11-2012 they sent a letter seeking additional time. Since it is more than 18 days after sending the letter to the 2^nd OP the complainant has sent a letter on 20-11-2012 informing the Ops no.1 and 2 to treat the proposal as cancelled and till 20-11-2012, the complainant was only a proposer and the Ops no.1 and 2 did not accept the proposal as per the contract act. So the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed version contending interalia as under:

          The complaint of complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The proposal form along with declaration was duly signed and submitted by the complainant on 5-7-2012. The Ops received Rs.50,000=00 as the first premium amount from the complainant and the receipt for the same was issued by the Ops. Subsequently the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant through courier on 8-8-2012 via Sri Chakra Transtech Courier under AWB No.2351343. Subsequently the complainant enquiries on the non receipt of policy documents, the Ops were surprised as they had already dispatched the policy documents. On investigations by the Ops, it was found that the proof of delivery of the policy documents was misplaced by courier. Under such circumstance the Ops cannot be liable for deficiency of service and the policy documents were dispatched through Sri Chakra Transtech courier and the receipt number for having sent is AWB no.2351343, but as the courier company has misplaced the proof of delivery, under such circumstances it is the courier company who is liable for deficiency of service. So it is just and necessary to implead Sri Chakra Transtech courier as a party to this complaint and dismiss the complaint against the Ops. The Ops are not aware of the factual as to whether the policy documents were delivered to the complainant. The Ops assuming that the original policy documents being misplaced due to the fault of the Courier Company, the OPs wanted to provide a duplicate copy of the policy documents to the complainant bearing the same terms and conditions but the complainant with a malafide intention, refused to sign the indemnity bond and refused to receive any duplicate copy of the policy documents. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has come to this forum with unclean hands. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP. There is no cause of action; the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service and injustice against the Ops. The complainant has not provided any valid and legal reason for which they are eligible for any relief. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                  Whether the complainant proves that, the Ops are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not delivering the original policy document as stated in the complaint?

2.                  If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                  What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Affirmative

Point no.2:  The complainant is entitled to claim  

a sum of Rs.50,000=00 and

                    Rs.2,000=00 towards cost of litigation.

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and produced 8 documents which are marked as annexure-1 to 8. On the other hand, one Gopi Narayanan, Zonal Manager working in the Ops has filed his affidavit on behalf of the OPs and produced three documents. We have heard the arguments of both sides, and we have gone through the oral and relevant documents of both parties meticulously.   

7. One S.S.Lakshmi, who being the complainant has filed her affidavit that, the 1^st OP sent their representative by name Mr.Amarnth to her residence on 27-6-2012 with terms and conditions of HDFC SL Sampoorn Samridhi. As per the terms, she had proposed to take a policy by paying a cheque bearing no.730399 dated 29-6-2012 for Rs.50,000=00 to the 1^st OP. The 1^st OP has promised her and sent receipt and also policy within 15 days from the date of encashment of cheque. She got the receipt from HDFC life insurance bearing no.C0452864 dated 5-7-2012 from 1^st OP on 6-7-2012 sent by courier. She waited for the policy from 1^st OP by accepting the terms and conditions as promised to her on 21^st and 22^nd July 2012. Since the policy is not received within due date, she contacted over phone about the not receipt of policy during the second week of Aug.12. The 1^st OP promised every time that the policy has been sent by courier and requested her for 20 days and the 1^st OP said she would verify at their end whether the policy has been delivered or not within 20 days. She waited till 10-9-2012 and contacted the 1^st OP on 10-9-2012 at 15.50 hours. One Mr.Sunil employee of the 1^st OP confirmed that the policy would be sent later and requested her to wait for 20 days, the OP no.1 promised that she will be in touch with her without fail but did not contact till 7-10-2012. She with great anxiety had handed over a letter to 1^st OP dated 8-10-2012 through her father to know the status of the policy & her father was handled by one of their team leaders and she had asked one week time again to get back the matter. She received various telephone calls from 1^st OP and the 2^nd OP requesting to give 15 days time again. The 2^nd OP has requested in their letter dated 15-10-2012 stating that the policy bond was sent to her by Sri Chakra Transect Courier thro consignment note no.2351343 and the 2^nd OP attached an indemnity bond for duplicate policy, this letter clearly shows the service deficiency of the OP and the statement made by the 2^nd OP is utterly false and should be put into strict proof as she has not received the original policy till date. She had undergone a lot of excitement and anxiety due to the false statements made by 1^st OP and 2^nd OP and also the money invested is also big amount. It is the duty of the 1^st OP to make sure that original policy bond has been received by the proposer within the promised time. There is a deficiency of service by the Ops no.1 and 2. Moreover the day when her father visited the 1^st OP office on 8-10-2012 the policy bound could have been handed over by the 1^st OP or sent it to her without any delay. She addressed a letter dated 2-11-2012 informing that the original policy bond is not received till date and there is no need to request for duplicate policy bond. She requested the 2^nd OP to send the proof of delivery within 10 days and if the reply to the letter dated 2-11-2012 is not received within 10 days the proposal stands automatically cancelled. She has sent a letter on 20-11-2012 informing the Ops no.1 and 2 to treat the proposal as cancelled till 20-11-2012. She was only a proposer and the Ops no.1 and 2 did not accept the proposal as per the contract act. So she prayed to grant relief as prayed in the complaint.

8. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of complainant. Annexure-1 is the copy of terms and conditions of product issued by the OPs wherein it is stated that, name of the product as Sampoorn Samridhi and premium is of Rs.50,000=00 per annum, terms of the policy is 7 years, total value of the policy is Rs.690838/-. Annexure-2 is receipt issued by the OPs in the name of complainant dated 5-7-2012 bearing policy no.15277183 having receipt no.C0452864 for having received Rs.50,000=00 from complainant through cheque. Annexure-3 is letter of complainant addressed to the authorized signatory of OPs stating that till now she has not received the policy, she is sending her father to their office and she has incurred a sum of Rs.500=00 towards his conveyance please co-operate and she requested to acknowledge receipt of this letter. Annexure-4 is letter of OPs addressed to the complainant intimating her that the complaint has been registered by them and that complaint is being handled by their customer relations representative Mr.Nitin Jadhav. Annexure-5 is letter of OPs addressed to the complainant informing that, the policy document was dispatched through Sri Chakra Transect Courier with the dispatch details as under: AWB No.2351343, policy no.15277183, consignee name is Mrs.S.S.Lakshmi and delivery date is 8-8-2012. However as a special case, they can arrange a duplicate policy document in her name and made request to fill and sign the indemnity bond and submit the indemnity bond to their branch. Anneuxre-6 is letter of complainant addressed to the Mr.Nitin Jadhav, Customer Service Department of OPs requesting to send the original policy only and not duplicate and if there is no provision to send the original policy please treat the policy cancelled and send the amount of Rs.50,000=00 to her immediately, she has spent an amount of Rs.500=00 towards conveyance from residence to Koramangala and Rs.100=00 as postal charges, if she does not receive reply within 10 days she will go to consumer court for deficiency in service and claim for compensation. Annexure-8 is the letter of complainant addressed to the Mr.Nidhin Jadhav the employee of OPs stating that she has not received the policy from them and requested to cancel her proposal and send the amount of Rs.50,000=00 immediately.

9. The said oral evidence of complainant as mentioned above to the effect that, after paying Rs.50,000=00 through cheque, the OPs did not send the original policy document in-spite of repeated requests and reminders by complainant is corroborated by copies of terms and conditions of the policy given by the OPs, receipts and correspondence letters between the complainant and OPs which are marked as annexure -1 to 6 and 8.

10. At this stage, it is relevant to have cursory glance at the material evidence of OP. One Gopi Narayana, Zonal Manager of OP has stated in his affidavit that, the proposal form along with declaration was duly signed and submitted by the complainant on 5-7-2012, and their company has received Rs.50,000=00 as the first premium amount from the complainant and the receipt for the same was issued by their company. The company has dispatched the policy documents to the complainant through courier on 8-8-2012 via Sri Chakra Transtech Courier vide AWB No.2351343, and after the complainant’s enquiries on the non -receipt of policy documents, their company was surprised as already dispatched the policy documents through Sri Chakra Transtech courier. On investigations by their company, it was found that the proof of delivery of the policy documents was misplaced by Sri Chakra Transtech Courier, so their company cannot be liable for deficiency of service and complaint be dismissed. So it is just and necessary to implead Sri Chakra Transtech courier as a party to this complaint. There is no cause of action nor is any valid reasons to file the case against the OPs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. So the complaint be dismissed with cost.

11. The OPs have produced a letter of authority to the Legal Manager of their company to prosecute the case on behalf of the OPs. Document no.2 is copy of proposal form with details given by the complainant dated 5-7-2012 for getting the policy of the OPs. Document no.3 consists of the policy documents in the name of complainant issued by the OPs through courier, but no document is produced by the OPs to show that the OPs have dispatched the original policy documents to the complainant through particular courier service.

12. In the absence of production of receipt or any authenticated documentary evidence for having dispatched the original policy documents to the complainant by OPs, it is inequitable and unjust to hold on the basis of oral testimony of the employee of OPs that, the OPs have dispatched the original policy documents to the complainant through particular courier service. The act of the OPs in not delivering the original policy documents to the complainant as on this date amounts to sheer negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. So taking the oral and documentary evidence of complainant and compare the same with the material evidence of OPs, it is no doubt true that, the OPs have not placed any iota of documentary evidence to establish that, they have delivered the original policy documents through particular courier service. After taking the premium amount of Rs.50,000=00 from complainant, it is the bounden duty of OPs to see that the original policy documents must be delivered to the complainant duly or not. But unfortunately the OPs have not taken the care of handing over the original policy documents to the complainant through authenticated courier service. So the OPs are liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant by paying back the amount to the complainant along with interest and cost of litigation, and as such we are of the view that, the oral and documentary evidence of complainant are more believable and trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of OPs. So we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has proved this point with believable material evidence that, the OPs are negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in not delivering the original policy documents to the complainant and accordingly we answer this point in a affirmative.   

13. In view of our affirmative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is entitled to claim a sum f Rs.50,000=00 from the OPs along with 9% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint to till the date of realization within 30 from the days of this order and the OPs no.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation, and accordingly we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

          The OPs no.1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.50,000=00 to the complainant alongwith 9% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint to till the date of realization within 30 from the days of this order.

          The OPs no.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28^th day of June 2014).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT