Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/82/2010

Ram Chander S/o Sant Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh.Desh Raj Mangal - Opp.Party(s)

S.D.Kishore

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No.82 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 03.02.2010

                                                                                    Date of decision: 25.07.2016

Ram Chander aged about 55 years son of Shri Sant Ram, resident of House No. 732, Basant Nagar, Behind ESIC Hospital, Tejli Road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Sh. Desh Raj Mangal, resident of House No. 4, Professor Colony, Behind Telephone Exchange, Near Ambay Gas Agency, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. (Agent). 
2. Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:Sh. Shiv Dayal Kishore, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.  

              Sh. Atul Pandey, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2. 

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Ram Chander has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) agent of Op No.2 appraoched to the complainant in the month of June 2006 and showed the plan of “HDFC Unit Link Young Star Policy” to the complainant and assured that the policy will be proved very beneficial for the complainant and also stated that the rate of interest are going down day by day and also assured that insurance company will pay 2-3 times more amount then the total premium amount. As per assurance given by Op No.1, the complainant purchased the abovesaid policy and deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of premium vide cheque No. 878296 dated 10.06.2006 drawn at SBI Jagadhri and OP No.1 issued a policy bearing No. 10634210. In this way the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. When the policy in question was in force OP No.1 again met the complainant in the month of July, 2007 and again the complainant purchased one another policy and paid a premium of Rs. 10,000/- on 01.07.2007 vide cheque No. 11595 and Op No.1 issued policy bearing No. 1114875 in the favour of the complainant for 10 years and the last installment of the policy in question was to be deposited on 13.07.2016. The complainant deposited next installment of premium on 05.09.2009 amounting to Rs. 10250/- with interest. After some time when the complainant tried to know about surrender value of the policy in question and on this the OP No.2 told the complainant that at this stage the company will pay an amount of Rs. 14,000/- on account of surrender value to the complainant for each policy instead of Rs. 40,000/- which the complainant has already paid to the OPs on account of premium. The complainant raised objection on illegal act and conduct of the OPs. OP No.2 is adamant to cause irreparable loss to the complainant in the shape of monatory loss which constitute deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed that OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith interest on account of premium for the policies in question and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.07.2011 whereas OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complicated question of law and facts involved; complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the contract of the insurance and complainant cannot claim anything beyond the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The true facts are that complainant purchased first insurance policy No. 10173166 from OP No.2 vide proposal form dated 24.01.2005. The working and benefits of the said policy was described to the complainant and the policy documents were given to the complainant and he has taken benefits of the money back features of the same. Secondly, thereafter complainant purchased one more i.e. second insurance policy bearing No. 10634210 vide proposal dated 09.06.2006 and the policy documents were also handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant purchased one more i.e. 3^rd insurance policy bearing No. 11154875 vie proposal form dated 29.06.2007. The pattern of purchasing the insurance policy one after another every year shows that complainant is well aware about the terms and conditions of the insurance policies, so, the allegations of the complainant are totally wrong. Moreover,  the policy documents also gave an “ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed with any feature of the policy. The complainant did not cancel any policy within the stipulated period of 15 days provided to him and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

4.                     In support of his complaint, complainant filed his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy bearing No. 10634210 and 11154875 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of receipts of renewal premium as Annexure C-2 and C-3, Copy of clarification letter issued by OP No.2 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of renewal receipt as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-6 and closed his evidence.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh, HDFC Life Insurance Co. as Annexure RX and documents such as photo copy of Unit Linked Proposal Form as Annexure R1, Photo copy of Personal details as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Unit Liked Proposal Form as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of Personal details as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.   

6.                     We have heard both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the OP No.2 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     Without going into the merit of the case and after hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

8.                     From the perusal of the insurance policy Annexure C-1 bearing No. 10634210 dated 24.06.2006 and second policy bearing No. 11154875 dated 13.07.2007 in the name of complainant, it is clearly evident that complainant invested the money through the Unit Linked Policies called HDFC, Unit Linked Young Star Policies in his name issued by the Ops in the year 2006 and 2007 respectively. It is a settled proposition of law that Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction with regard to Unit Link Policies and the same view has been held in case titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. III(2013) CPJ page 203 (NC) and Nrinder Kaur & Others Verus Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited, 2015(3) CLT page 411 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)- Consumer- Unit Linked Insurance Policy- Held- that in respect of claim under Unit linked Insurance Policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under Act because the money having been invested in a speculative business- The complainants, thus, do not become the Consumer of the Ops with regard to this Unit Linked Policy- Appeal dismissed

9.                     Furthermore, the policy documents also gave an“ Option to Return” according to which complainant was given a period of 15 days within which complainant could have returned the policy documents if the complainant disagreed but the complainant has not exercised the option of free look period for cancellation of policy. Further, the version of the complainant is falsified from the other angle also as the complainant obtained the second policy bearing No. 11154875 dated 13.07.2007 from the Ops. So, it cannot be said that first policy was issued to the complainant forcibly and by playing fraud and cheating. Learned counsel for the Ops draw out attention towards the terms and conditions of the policy in question Annexure R-4 in which it has been specifically mentioned that all unit linked insurance policies will have a lock-in period of 3 years and referred the case law titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd. Versus Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014(2) CLT page 490  wherein it has been held that Insurance Claim- Free look period- Exclusion clause- Plea of petitioner that terms of insurance contract was not explained to him- Held- the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “ conditions”, “free Look Period” was given to the petitioner with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy- If the insured was not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had an option to seek cancellation of the policy with refund of his premium- the insured had not opted for cancellation of the policy- Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by the Exclusion Clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium and also referred the case law titled as Resham Devi Versus The New India Assurance Co. ltd. & Others, 2014(3) CLT Page 328.  Further referred the case law titled as Avtar Singh Dhillon Versus HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, III (2012) CPJ page 133, Ram Lal Aggarwalla Versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another, III (2013) CPJ page 203 (NC).

10.                   In the circumstances noted above as the complainant has failed to convince this forum that in what manner the Ops had played unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service with him. As such, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for redressal of his grievances, (if so advised) and further the complainant can approach to OPs Insurance Company to proceed the Insurance Policy as per its terms and conditions. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 25.07.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.