Date of filing:30.01.2021

                                               Date of Disposal:02.03.2023

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF MARCH, 2023      

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.146/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR:MEMBER

Aged about 41 years,

Residing at No.27 and 28, Flat No.1, First Floor,

Hemavathi Homes Apartments,

Udayanagara 2^nd Cross,

Bengaluru-560 061.…COMPLAINANT

In person

Relationship Manager,

HDFC Standard Life 9,

M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.… OPPOSITE PARTY

Rep by Sri.Jai M.Patil, Advocate

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU K.S, MEMBER

The complainant in-person has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking for a direction  to opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- bumper addition as promised with compensation and litigation cost. 

2. The case of the complainant is that, in the year 2010 he had purchased “HDFC Endowment Supreme Suvidaha Policy” bearing number 13398428 from the opposite party. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- monthly premium for this policy. Further, the opposite party offered a bumper addition of Rs.10,000/- and Unitized Fund Value upon payment of all premiums.

3. The above mentioned policy matured on 28^th January 2020 and the complainant chooses the settlement option of one year and as per terms and conditions no surrender charges will be applicable.  On 20.10.2020 the opposite party has paid the fund value of Rs.3,26,436/- without  adding the bumper addition of               Rs.10,000/- as assured. When complainant had enquired about this bumper addition amount, the opposite party did not give satisfactory answer.   After several enquires with the opposite party, the opposite party executives replied evasively that the complainant has extended his policy for next 5 years. The complainant never requested for extension of the policy period as stated by the opposite party executives.  In addition to that the opposite party executives have told that the bumper addition would not be given if there was failure of payment by the policy holder.  The complainant has fulfilled every condition for eligible to bumper addition.   In spite of repeated requests and approach of opposite party from pillar to post the opposite party not complied his assurance with regard to payment of bumper addition and failed to resolve the issue.   Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 05.11.2020 to comply the assurance. The opposite party failed to comply the assurance.  In spite of legal notice, he caused deficiency of service and liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, it is sought to allow this complaint.  

4. On the other hand the opposite part filed his version by denying the claim of the complainant. The opposite party specifically stated that they had paid the bumper addition of Rs.10,000/- on 28.01.2020 not once. They had made payment twice due to oversight and the complainant has to return the same. For that the opposite party had issued the notice to the complainant.   Since they have already made the payment as assured they are not liable under the deficiency of service.  Rest of the complaint averments are admitted by the opposite party.

5.      The complainant is examined as PW-1 by filing the chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 documents.  The opposite party has also reiterated his case by filing his affidavit in form of examination in chief and got marked exhibits R1 to R4.  

6.      Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

7. On the basis of the pleadings and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the complaint?

iii) What order?

8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In affirmative

Point No.2: Partly affirmative

Point No.3: As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

9.POINT NO.1:- In this complaint there is no dispute with regard to that the complainant had purchased “HDFC Endowment Supreme Suvidaha” Policy bearing number 13398428 from the opposite party. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.20,000/- monthly premium for this policy. The same was matured on 28.01.2020.  On 20.10.2020 the opposite party has paid Rs.3,26,436/- to the complainant as a maturity amount.  Further, the complainant alleged that the opposite party agreed to pay 50% of the premium amount as bumper addition at the time of inception of the policy.  The annual premium was of Rs.20,000/- and 50% of that amount is Rs.10,000/-.  In spite of repeated requests and legal notice received by the opposite party, the opposite party has failed to pay the bumper addition amount of Rs.10,000/-.   As per Ex.P1 the policy schedule at page second the opposite party agreed to pay 50% of the original annualized premium amount in case of policy term 10 years.  Further, as per EX.P3 in email conversation dt.21.10.2020 the opposite party asked to provide screen shots regarding the bumper addition.  In Email letter dt.22.10.2020 the opposite party replied that the bumper addition is eligible only at the time of maturity and further stated that the complainant was placed surrender request of the policy, hence the complainant is not entitle to bumper addition.  Further, in email letter dt.24.10.2020 the opposite party stated that the complainant has requested to increase the term for 5 years.   On 30.10.2020 the opposite party stated that the surrender bumper addition benefit will not be applicable.   From revealing of the EX.P3 the opposite party executives not at all interested to pay the bumper addition as assured in EX.P1 policy copy.   In turn the opposite party executives prolonged the issue by giving false reasons. 

10. Against EX.P3 e-mail conversations the opposite party has stated in their version that they had paid bumper addition of Rs.10,000/- on 28.01.2020 not only once, but twice due to over sight.  For that the opposite party placed EX.R4 detailed unit statement. 

11. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the availment of the policy and payment of premiums without default by the complainant.  Further, there is dispute with regard to the payment of Rs.3,26,436/- maturity amount to the complainant on 20.10.2020.  The opposite party has failed to pay the bumper addition amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as assured.  The opposite party has failed to produce any document to substantiate his version that he has paid Rs.10,000/- on 28.01.2020 as canvased in Ex.R4.  Admittedly, the policy was matured on 28.01.2020.  The opposite party has to produce cogent evidence with regard to the payment of bumper addition of Rs.10,000/-.  In this regard, the opposite party failed to convince this commission the bumper addition amount of Rs.10,000/- has been paid.  In contra as per EX.P3 the opposite party executives raised unnecessary queries with regard to the payment of bumper addition and denied to pay the same.  Thereby the opposite party is liable under deficiency of service to the complainant and we answer point No.1 in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.2:- The opposite party has assured to pay the 50% of the annual premium as bumper addition in case the policy period is 10 years.  In this complaint, the annual premium was Rs.20,000/-.  Hence, the complainant is entitle to bumper addition of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of maturity.  In addition to that the complainant is also entitle Rs.10,000/- compensation for inconvenience and mental agony.  Further, the complainant is also entitle Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.  Hence, we answer point No.2 partly affirmative. 

13. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of the policy i.e., from 28.01.2020 till realization.

Further the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to complainant as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience, and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.

The opposite party shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 2^nd day of March, 2023)                                            

(REKHA SAYANNAVAR)         (RAJU K.S)        (SHIVARAMA. K)    

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

• the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Policy document and terms and conditions.
2. Maturity confirmation email and settlement option confirmation.
3. Email conversation HDFC denying bumper addition.
4. Premium paid proof for 10 years.
5. Copy of online complaint to consumer helpline.
6. Copy of legal notice to opposite party
7. Copy of receipt email by HDFC claiming money from complainant.
8. Copy of response to email.
9. Payment of maturity amount and receipt. 

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Mr.Raktim, Manager Legal of opposite party company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Copy of the proposal form submitted by the complainant.

2. Copy of the policy and other annexures issued to complainant.

3. Copy of the detailed unit statement reflecting the deposit of bumper on 28.01.2021.

(REKHA SAYANNAVAR)        (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)