PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012
Filed on : 22/02/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 99/11
Between
Binu Kuriakose, : Complainant
Arikupurathu house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Paipra Manari P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. Rajesh Paul, : Opposite parties
Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank, Velloorkunnam, (O.P 1 absent)
Market P.O.,
Muvattupuzha- 686 673.
2. Manas Dharan, (service of notice against Ops.
Asst. Branch Manager, 2&3 not completed)
HDFC Bank, Velloorkunnam
Market P.O.,
Muvatupupzha-686 673.
3. Dipukumar P.,
Financial Consultant,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance
Co. Lt., HDFC SL Muvattupuzha
Branch, 1st floor, Cheripuram
Malika P.O. Junction,
Muvattupuzha-686 661.
4. The Branch Manager, (4th O.P. by adv. Saji IsaacKJ)
HDFC Standard Life Insurance 311 H.B, Flats, Panampilly
Co. Ltd., HDFC SL Nagar, Cochin-36)
Muvattupuzha Branch,
1st floor, Cheripuram Malika,
P.O. Junction,
Muvattupuzha – 686 661.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is an account holder of the 1st opposite party. During the last year, the complainant maintained a deposit of Rs. 12 lakhs in the account. Whenever the complainant reached the Bank, the opposite parties 1 to 3 used to approach the complainant and they told him about a profitable investment scheme in their insurance wing. They also offered classic customer facility of the Bank if the complainant made a deposit of Two lakhs rupees in the investment scheme. They assured a profit of Rs. 10,000/- after 10 years and insurance coverage of life for Rs. 16,000.00/- for 10 years. Believing their assurances the complainant entrusted Rs. 2,000.00/- with the 3rd opposite party to join the scheme. Thereafter a policy document was send to the complainant. Since the complainant was out of station for one month, the cover was opened after a month. On going through the said document, the complainant was shocked o see that the terms and conditions in he policy are against the assurance and information provided by the opposite parties 1 to 3. Immediately the complainant contacted the opposite parties seeking cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount remitted by him. The complainant sent two mails to the 2nd opposite party and the 4th opposite party. The 4th opposite party’s customer officer had given a reply dated 31-01-2011 stating their inability to refund the amount paid by the complainant. The act of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 to make false offers assurances and thereby compelling the complainant to remit money in their investment scheme amounts to unfair trade practices. The 4th opposite party is also liable to refund the amount received by them on receipt of the request of the complainant by giving the reasons for making the payment. The complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of remittance till realization. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 4th opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had submitted an application form for HDFC savings assurance plan and a policy was issued to the complainant based on the application made by the complainant. The application form has a section of plan details and it was the complainant himself who had opted for the premium frequency as yearly. According to the email sent by the complainant dated 01-12-2010, the complainant was not aware that the policy was a regular premium plan and that he was not in a position to pay the premium yearly. The said contention of the complaint is false and cannot be relied on. The complainant was aware that the policy was a regular premium policy payable yearly. The complainant had along with the application for the policy, filed a verification of source of funds which was signed by the complainant and which shows that it was a regular premium policy. The complainant had also given a standing instruction mandate of HDFC Bank Ltd for payment of the premium yearly from the account of the complainant. The application given by the complainant clearly shows that the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of applying for the policy and that the policy was one which required payment of yearly premium. It was stated in the letter dated 10-08-2010 sent to the complainant that in case the complainant was not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy and the details in the proposal an option to return the policy stating the reasons thereof within 15 days of receipt of the policy. Though the policy document was sent to the complainant on 10th August 2010, the complainant sent an e-mail to the 1st & 2nd opposite parties only on December 1,2010. According to the application form and the conditions of the policy the complainant did not have an option to return the policy after the period of 15 days of receipt of the policy. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the 4th opposite party.
3. Though notice of this complaint was served with the 1st opposite party, he opted to remain absent during the proceedings. Service of notice of this complaint has not been completed against the opposite parties 2 and 3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 were marked on the side of the complainant and the 4th opposite party respectively. Heard the contesting parties.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2 lakhs collected by the opposite party by way of insurance premium.
5. According to the complainant, lured by the assurances of the opposite parties he joined as insurance policy and on receipt of the policy documents he came to know that the terms and conditions of the policy are against the assurances and information provided by the opposite parties. He stated that since he was out of station he could not intimate the opposite parties about his disability to continue with the policy. The 4th opposite party would go to contend that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and even if he was dissatisfied with the policy he ought to have intimated the same within the free lock period, in which he failed.
6. Ext. B1 is the details of the policy and the application submitted by the complainant at the time of joining the policy. In Ext. B1 it is clearly stated that the premium frequency is yearly and the period is 10 years. Moreover the complainant had given a standing instructions pro-mandate to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd to debit Rs. 2 lakhs yearly from his account to the account of the insurance company.
7. The above aspects in Ext. B1 goes to show that the complainant was aware of the terms and conditions regarding the subsequent payment of the yearly premium. Further the contention of the complainant that he was out of station during the free lock period can not be entertained since nothing is on record to substantiate the same.
8. In all respects the complainant fails to prove his contentions in this Forum with evidence orally or documentary. In the absence of the above we are only to close the proceedings in this complaint. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 10-08-2010
A2 : Copy of application form
A3 series : Copies of letters
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Letter dt. 10-08-2010
