West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

Cc/574/2014

Sri Malay Sankar Roy Chaudhuri S/O Late Suhas Kr. Royb Chaudhuiri. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Grievance Redressal Cell. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,

AMANTRAN BAZAR,103/A, KULPI ROAD, KACHARIBAZAR,BARUIPUR,KOLKATA – 144

 

         C.C. CASE NO. _574_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 27.11.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  16.8.2016__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :   Sri Malay Sankar Roy Chaudhuri,s/o late Suhas Kr. Roy Chaudhuri of 03/11, Raj Krishna Chatterjee Road, Kasba, Kolkata – 42.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   1. M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited,                                  Grievance Redressal Cell,11^th floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011.

                                             2.    Mrs. Metilda Stanley, Sr. Vice President-Consumer Relations, M/s HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Raman House, H T Parekh Marg. 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020

                                            3.    Mr. Kushal Madhogonia, Assistant Vice-President, Indian Infoline(IIFL) 1, Shakespeare SArani, (7^th Floor), A.C. Market, Kolkata – 71.

                                           4.     M/s HDFC SL, Kolkata Menaka Estate Branch, 3, Red Cross Place, Menaka Estate (Ground Floor), Kolkata- 1.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Mrs. Sharmi Basu, Member

The instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the O.Ps with allegation of deficiency in service.

In a nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that on being convinced by One Shri  Bidesh Bhattacharyya , agent of O.P-3 complainant opened an FD with the O.P-3 on payment of Rs.1 lac on 17.10.2012   for one year term with an expectation that he would get a gold coin valued Rs.17000/- along with policy certificate for single payment of one year.   Accordingly he received a Certificate being Policy no.15520119 for 10 years duration on 5.12.2012 of HDFCLife instead of one year FD. Complainant immediately made a complaint to the Grievance Cell of the O.P. But no fruitful result came out ,for which he requested the O.Ps for cancellation of the policy . It also yielded no result. Hence, this case is filed praying for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs for disservice and mental and physical pain suffered by the complainant , cost etc.

O.Ps contested the case by filing written version  and denied all the material allegations leveled against them, contending inter alia that complainant approached the O.Ps through a broker and expressed his willingness to avail a life insurance policy and after understanding and being satisfied with the details furnished to him, complainant applied for a “HDFC SL Savings Assurance Plan”  and upon receipt of written application the Policy Certificate was issued. The case of the O.Ps is that complainant signed the proposal documents which clearly states the working benefits, term and type of policy and every policy document as per Regulation 6(2) of Protection of Policy Holders’ Interest Regulations, 2002 contains an option to return the policy within 15 days of receiving the same ,if the policy holder is not satisfied which is called Free Look period of the policy. But O.Ps did not receive any request for cancellation from the complainant within that Free Look Period. The O.Ps pray for dismissal of the case .

After scrutinizing vividly every nook and corner of the instant case and hearing minutely the case of the complainant from his Ld. Advocate, following points are in lime light for consideration:

Points for Decision

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer or not.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.
3. Whether the complainant is eligible to get relief as prayed for partly or fully.

Decision with reasons

All the points are taken together for discussion as they are interlinked.

In the instant case complainant took a policy from the O.P nos. 1 & 2 Insurer) by paying premium of Rs.1 lac only and O.P-3 is the Agent of the Insurer, as per the document (in original) filed by the complainant; and O.P-4 is the Branch Office of Insurer O.P. Therefore, complainant is the “Consumer” of the O.P nos. 1 to 4 within the purview of the COPRA,1986 under section 2(1)(d)(ii) .

            It is crystal clear from the record in its entirety that O.P nos. 1 and 2 are the insurer of the complainant and though they have tried to disown the O.P-3 as Agent of them but from the document filed by the complainant in original bottom para of the first page of the policy paper  it is mentioned that “Agent details : Name: India Infoline Insurance Brokers Limited, Address:IIFL Centre Kamala City Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra Code:00490807, License No.DB-314/05 ”. Therefore, being insurer O.P-1,2 and 4 should not shrug-off their responsibility towards the complainant/consumer/insured.

            Moreover, we find no reason to disbelieve in the contention that being convinced by the official person of O.P-3 that for the policy complainant had to pay one time premium amounting to Rs.1 lac and furthermore the insurer would give him a gold coin because being the insurer O.P nos. 1 and 2 and being the agent O.P-3 and being branch office of insurer O.P-4 have ample opportunity to give any evidence on affidavit through the person namely Bidesh Bhattacharyya to establish that he has not allured and/or misled with false statement regarding policy in question.

In this regard, we are of the opinion that we find no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that being convinced by an official of the insurer/O.P-3), complainant-1 /intending purchaser signed the policy paper with a notion that complainant has to pay one time premium. It is observed by this Forum that nowadays, it is the common practice of some of the Insurance Company to deploy agents or officials to convince and allure the common people, who are ordinary prudent persons , about the huge benefit of insurance policy which is not matter of fact and being convinced by this agent or common people being a very ordinary prudent persons and having no vivid knowledge about the insurance policy purchased the policy. In this case complainant also faced same type of unscrupulous practice of the O.Ps through the official of the insurer.  It is also fact that as per section 6 of the C.P Act 1986 consumer should be informed vividly about  the service by the service provider and the insurer/O.P being a service provider was duty bound to explain rightfully and elaborately to the complainant before issuance of the policy. But the O.Ps in the instant case has neither performed the aforesaid duty and on the contrary O.Ps through their official allured the complainant giving wrong conception. This type of activity of the O.P amounts to not only deficiency of rendering services but also unfair trade practice in view of section 2(1)(g) , 2(1)(o) and 2(1)( r ) of the C.P Act, 1986 respectively.

            It is observed by this Forum that in the instant case complainant informed to the Agent of the O.P nos. 1 and 2 within a legitimate period regarding willingness to cancel the policy by due to misleading submission of the employee of the O.P-3 who is none but an agent of the O.p nos. 1 and 2, complainant being an ordinary prudent person cannot cancel the policy in question.

Therefore, in light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that the O.P nos. 1 to 4 jointly and/or severally not only liable for deficiency of service but also for unfair trade practice towards the complainant under section n 2(1)(g) , 2(1)(o), 2(1)( r ) of the C.P. Act 1986.

In this regard it is opined strongly by this Forum that the activity of the unscrupulous agent of O.P nos. 1 and 2 ,insurer, is also binding upon the O.P nos. 1 and 2 and also upon the O.P-4 being the branch office of O.P-1 and O.P nos.1,2 and 4 cannot shrug off their liability of wrong doing of the gent of O.P-3 and liable for the same. The O.Ps are also liable for unfair trade practice under section 2(1)( r ) of the C.P Act and should compensate aptly to the complainant for his tremendous mental agony and harassment .

Thus all the points are discussed and the same are in favour of the complainant and complaint case succeeds.

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost.

All the O.Ps jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.5 Lacs ( Rupees Five Lacs)  as compensation to the complainant for his tremendous mental agony, harassment and huge financial loss due to deficiency in rendering services by O.P nos. 1 to 4 and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which punitive damage of Rs.100/- per day will be imposed upon the O.Ps jointly and/or severally after stipulated period is over till realization. Wich will be deposited to Legal Aid fund.

Let a plain copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.

 

 

                                                            Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost.

All the O.Ps jointly and/or severally directed to pay Rs.5 Lacs ( Rupees Five Lacs)  as compensation to the complainant for his tremendous mental agony, harassment and huge financial loss due to deficiency in rendering services by O.P nos. 1 to 4 and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P nos. 1 to 4 and also to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which punitive damage of Rs.100/- per day will be imposed upon the O.Ps jointly and/or severally after stipulated period is over till realization. Wich will be deposited to Legal Aid fund.

 

Let a plain copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.

 

 

                                                            Member                                               President