By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant herein filed this complaint on 15/07/2014 and an order was passed by this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 09/09/2015 directing the respondents to pay 75% of the first premium amount to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,000/- and failing which the opposite parties are also directed to pay 6% interest upon the total amount from the date of order i.e., 09/09/2015. Aggrieved by the order the second opposite party, the manager, HDFC Standard Life insurance company Limited, Kailambalathil Arcade, Naduvil Angadi, Pookayil Bazar, Tirur , Malappuram preferred Appeal No.24/2016 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the second opposite party /appellant to file version and adduce evidence if any and also directed to dispose the complaint as expeditiously as possible .
2. On receipt of records from State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Commission issued notice to both parties on 07/08/2020. The notice issued to the first opposite party to appear on 30/11/2020 returned stating “no such person”. The notice was repeated to 21/04/2021 and that also returned stating as “left”. The notice issued to second opposite party to appear on 30/11/2020 returned stating “addressee left and present address not known”. The notice was repeated to 21/04/2021 against second opposite party returned stating “no such office in the address”.
3. Then the complainant furnished another address of the second opposite party office, located at Manjeri and which also returned as “left”. Thereafter on 18/10/2021 the second opposite party filed version on behalf of both the opposite parties in the matter. But the complainant had furnished address of second opposite party having office at Perinthalmanna and notice was also issued in the address given by the complainant. The notice to the second opposite party was duly served and then version along with Vakkalth filed by the second opposite party on 25/07/2022. But the notice to the second opposite party had served prior to 15/06/2022 and so he was called and set exparte. The second opposite party filed version beyond the statutory period i.e only on 25/07/2022 and so the matter was taken for orders after hearing the complainant.
4. In this complaint the second opposite party preferred appeal against the order of the District Forum and sought an order from State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to adduce evidence before the District Commission but though the repeated notice were issued against the appellant in the address furnished in the appeal memorandum but it was returned stating various reasons. The complainant made attempt to serve notice in an available branch office at Perinthalmanna but even then, after receipt of notice on 23/05/2022 filed version on 25/07/2022 which is beyond statutory period and so cannot be accepted as per the recent judgment of apex court i.e. New India Assurance company ltd. V/S Hilly Multipurpose cold storage Private Limited. So it can be seen that there is no evidence is seen adduced by none of the opposite parties. The first opposite party had filed affidavit during the year 2015 as part of evidence. The commission has gone the affidavits of both the complainant and the first opposite party as well as through the Ext. A1 document.
5. The first opposite party denied the allegations in the complaint except that they are one among the several marketing hubs of the HDFC, Standard life insurance policy. It is submitted that they are not the insurer of the petitioner and the insurer is M/s. HDFC standard life insurance which is a separate and distinct legal entity. The opposite party contended that the first opposite party made in as party in the complaint on individual capacity and so there is defect for the complaint and so, to be rejected in limine. The opposite party submitted that they do not have direct dealing with complainant but did not deny that the complainant had taken the policy through the techno top branch of HDFC Bank, Kozhikode. The bank had separated counter and counter staff who deals with the insurance affairs. The opposite party submitted that they had never made any statement what so ever to the complainant regarding the payment of policy amount and no officer of the bank had made any statement as mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party submitted that the terms of the policy are printed on the policy itself and the same are available on the internet as well. The opposite party submitted that if at all the complainant fails to adhere the terms and conditions, nobody else can be found fault with. The opposite party also submitted that there is no deficiency in service or negligence or misleading representations from the side of second opposite party in his individual capacity or from the side of any official of the bank and so the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
6. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party approached the complainant at his residence on 03/01/2009 and explained about insurance policy of the bank and motivated him by stating attractive terms of the insurance coverage and thereby convinced the complainant to subscribe the policy Known UL YOUNG STAR CHAMPION and paid premium amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- on 28/02/2009 at the office of the opposite party, Tirur. The opposite parties issued Ext. A1, first premium receipt from the office of the opposite party. Due to financial stringency the complainant could not remit further premium and accordingly approached the opposite parties for refund of the first premium amount as assured by the opposite party while subscribing the premium. At that time the response of the opposite party was that the policy stands lapsed and so the complainant Is not entitled for any amount as claimed by the complainant. The specific contention of the complainant in this complaint is that the opposite party had assured that in case of default of future premium amount the opposite party will refund the amount remitted by the complainant in toto.
7. But the perusal of version and affidavit of the opposite party, it has stated that they do not have direct connection with the insurance transaction and they are not the insurer of the complainant. According to opposite party the insurer is M/s HDFC Standard life insurance, who is a separate and distinct legal entity. At the same time opposite party has stated that the complainant had taken the policy through the Tirur Branch of HDFC bank. It is also stated that the bank had a separate counter and a counter staff who deals with the insurance affairs. It is also stated that there was no offer or statement whatsoever to the complainant regarding the payment of policy amount, terms etc. The contention of the opposite party is that the conditions are fixed by the insurance company and the terms of the policy are printed on the policy itself and the same are available on the internet as well.
8. It can be seen that the grievance of the complainant herein is that the non-refund of insurance premium amount remitted by the complainant and which is related to an insurance policy and so a consumer right covered by the Consumer Protection Act. The insurance is admittedly a contract between the insurer and insured with certain terms and conditions which both parties are bound to comply. In this complaint the one and only document available is the first premium receipt Ext. A1 alone. Ext. A1 shows the complainant remitted 1, 00,000/- rupees on 28/02/2009 to the HDFC Standard life plan UL YOUNG STAR CHAMPION. Ext. A1 shows the address of the opposite party as HDFC SL, Tirur Branch, Kailambalathil Arcade, 26/212 A, Naduvilangadi , Pookayil Bazar, Tirur, 676107. The opposite party admitted in the version the complainant had taken the policy through the Tirur branch of HDFC Bank. So, it can be inferred that the opposite party is representing HDFC Bank and they are providing HDFC standard life insurance policy also. The submission of the opposite party is that the bank had a separate counter and a counter staff who deals with the insurance affairs. But a consumer will understand, no doubt both the HDFC Bank as well as HDFC standard life are one and same since it is working under single roof with similar name. In this complaint the District Forum once allowed the complaint duly following the procedure. The non-appearance of opposite party before the Forum in due time led to file appeal against the order of the district Forum and sought order from State commission for fresh consideration of evidence providing chance to the second opposite party. The District Commission duly issued notice to the second opposite party several times but stand returned stating “not known, as well no such addressee”. Thereafter the complainant produced address of the second opposite party ie. Address of separate branch office working at Perinthalmanna and he was served notice on 23/05/2022. But the opposite party did not care to file version within the statutory period as laid down by the Hon’ble supreme court in New India Assurance company limited Vs Hilly Multipurpose cold storage private limited 2020(5)SCC 757.
9. More over the dispute is being with respect to insurance policy, but neither the complainant nor the opposite party produced terms and conditions regarding the insurance policy.
10. In the absence of evidence contra to the case of complainant, we are inclined to allow the prayer of the complainant. We find that the act of the opposite party amounts unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party caused inordinate delay in settling the dispute regarding the insurance policy. If there was proper response from the side of the opposite party the delay could have avoided. Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled reasonable amount of compensation in addition to the refund of first premium amount. The complainant also entitled for a reasonable amount as cost.
In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties directed to refund Rs.1, 00,000/-, the first premium remitted by the complainant on 28/02/2009 as per Ext. A1.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships to the complainant.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the proceedings
The opposite parties are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation and cost will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.
Dated this 14th day of September, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: The first premium receipt in policy No.12697425 in plan UL YOUNG STAR
CHAMPION.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party:
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
