Haryana

Karnal

CC/313/2018

Ansul Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Cholamandlam M/s Finance And Loan Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Akaash Chawla

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 313 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.14.11.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 01.10.2019

Ansul Jain son of Surinder Jain, resident of House-39A Mohalla Mishran Taraori, District Karnal.

                                                …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Cholamandlam M/s Finance and loan branch. Ground floor, SCO 193, Sector-12, HUDA, Karnal 132001.

2. The Branch Manager, Cholmandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Dare House, First Floor, N.S.C. Base Road, Parrys, N.S.C. Base Road, Parrys, Chennai-600001.

3. The General Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 13 floor, Lodha Excelus Building, N.M. Joshi Road (Apollo Mills Compound) Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-4000 11.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Akash Chawla Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   Shri Vikas Bakshi Advocate for OP no.3 (struck off)

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant has taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from OP no.1 on 5.12.2016, vide loan ID-4221530, the loan is from Cholamandlam Finance Ltd. On same day he had taken a life Insurance Policy no.PP000151 from OP no.3. The OP no.1 and OP no.3 has collaboration and on having obtaining loan from OP no.1 life insurance policy is issued by OP no.3 for the sum assured as per terms and condition of the said policy. The complainant filed the name of both Surinder Jain and Ansul Jain in the policy form, but due to some mistake from the side of OP the policy was issued in the name of only one person i.e. complainant. On 17.8.2018 Surinder Jain had expired due to cardiac arrest. After his death the complainant visited the OP no.1 for the claim amount, there he was told that the policy is in the name of Anshul Jain only. The complainant objected this and said that he had obtained the policy in the name of Ansul Jain and Surinder Jain and has specifically mentioned both these names in the application form. No other option and on asking of the OP no.1 complainant applied for the rectification of the policy. The OP rectified the policy within a week from the date of its submission. The detail of policy prior to the rectification is as under:-

The commencement of date of policy before rectification was 14.12.2016 and the total claim amount of Rs.6,04,494/- with installment premium paid Rs.7006.09. The certificate number of that policy was XVFPKAL00001847909. The detail of policy after rectification is as under:-

Certificate number-XVFPKAL00001847909R for Ansul Jain and certificate no.XVFPKAL00001847909A for Surinder Jain.

Though the policy was rectified but not correctly because firstly, the total amount assured in original policy was Rs.6,04,494/- and in the rectified policy it has to be half of the total sum assured which is equal to Rs.3,02,247/- but in the rectified policy the total sum assured is Rs.2,99,974/- out of which Rs.39,887/- for Surinder Jain and Rs.2,60,087/- for Ansul Jain which is not even half of the sum assured in the original policy. Secondly, the date of commencement of rectified policy is shown to be 05.12.2016 which is even before the commencement of original policy which was commenced on 14.12.2016. Thirdly, the age of Surinder Jain was 55 in the original policy where he was shown as a nominee which was commenced from 14.12.2016 but in the rectified policy the age of Surinder Jain has been mentioned 57 years but the commencement date of rectified policy is 05.12.2016 this also shows that the policy rectified have many mistakes. Fourthly, the installment premium amount for Surinder Jain is more than Ansul Jain but the sum assured of Surinder Jain is approximately 1/6 of Ansul Jain, the premium amount of Ansul Jain is Rs.3014.41 and of Surinder Jain is Rs.3813.60 but the sum assured of Surinder Jain is ridiculously on lower side. Because of defect in the original policy as well as in the rectified policy the complainant has suffered a huge loss as he could not get the claim of sum assured on account of death of his father Shri Surinder Jain. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached to the OPs for availing loan facility for purchase of car Alto and on the application made by the complainant an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was financed to the complainant and Surinder since diseased as co-applicant and a written agreement bearing no.XVFPKAL00001847909 executed on 5.12.2016 and the complainant stood as Borrower and Surinder (deceased) stood as co-applicant. That the relationship of the deceased Surinder and OPs no.1 and 2 is governed by the written contract entered in between the complainant and M/s Cholamandlam Finance Ltd. There are various terms and condition embodied in the written contract. The matter in issue is with respect to contractual obligation of both the parties which cannot be heard arbitrarily. Further, the signed written contract include a clause Arbitration and accordingly any dispute arose between parties to the contract would be resolved by the sole arbitrator of the company and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further pleaded that non-banking financial institution and as far as the Insurance policy mentioned by the complainant in his complaint is concerned to the OP no.3. It is further pleaded that as per the record/statement of account available with the office of OP an amount of Rs.1,76,400/- is pending due against the complainant as per statement dated 20.02.2019. The deceased and the borrower Anshul has opted for HDFC Standard Life Insurance and Surinder Jain decease was insured and the sum assured was Rs.39,887/- and the complainant was insured and sum assured was Rs.2,60,087/- of the complainant was insured by OP no.3 and the claim if any has to be settled by the insurance company. It is further pleaded that the claim lodged by the complainant with OP no.3 and an amount of Rs.39,887/- paid by the insurance company in the loan account statement on 26.10.2018. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs no.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.3 appeared but did not file any written version after availing so many opportunities including last opportunity. Hence the defence of OP no.3 was struck off, vide order dated 12.04.2019.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 18.06.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankit Pawar GPA Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 30.07.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 7.            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant has taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from OP no.1 on 5.12.2016 On same day he had taken a life Insurance Policy no.PP000151 from OP no.3. The complainant filed the name of both Surinder Jain and Ansul Jain in the policy form, but due to some mistake from the side of OP the policy was issue in the name of only one person i.e. complainant. On 17.8.2018 Surinder Jain had expired due to cardiac arrest. After his death the complainant visited the OP no.1 for the claim amount, there he was told that the policy is in the name of Anshul Jain only. The complainant objected this and said that he had obtained the policy in the name of Ansul Jain and Surinder Jain and has specifically mentioned both these names in the application form. No other option and on asking of the OP no.1 complainant applied for the rectification of the policy. The OP rectified the policy within a week from the date of its submission.  The policy was rectified but not correctly because firstly, the total amount assured in original policy was Rs.6,04,494/- and in the rectified policy it has to be half of the total sum assured which is equal to Rs.3,02,247/- but in the rectified policy the total sum assured is Rs.2,99,974/- out of which Rs.39,887/- for Surinder Jain and Rs.2,60,087/- for Ansul Jain which is not even half of the sum assured in the original policy. Secondly, the date of commencement of rectified policy is shown to be 05.12.2016 which is even before the commencement of original policy which was commenced on 14.12.2016. Thirdly, the age of Surinder Jain was 55 in the original policy where he was shown as a nominee which was commenced from 14.12.2016 but in the rectified policy the age of Surinder Jain has been mentioned 57 years but the commencement date of rectified policy is 05.12.2016 this also shows that the policy rectified have many mistakes. Fourthly, the installment premium amount for Surinder Jain is more than Ansul Jain but the sum assured of Surinder Jain is approximately 1/6 of Ansul Jain, the premium amount of Ansul Jain is Rs.3014.41 and of Surinder Jain is Rs.3813.60 but the sum assured of Surinder Jain is ridiculously on lower side. Because of defect in the original policy as well as in the rectified policy the complainant has suffered a huge loss as he could not get the claim of sum assured on account of death of his father Shri Surinder Jain.

8.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs no.1 and 2 in brief, is that Surinder Jain decease was insured and the sum assured was Rs.39,887/- and the complainant was insured and sum assured was Rs.2,60,087/- of the complainant was insured by OP no.3 and the claim if any has to be settled by the insurance company. The claim lodged by the complainant with OP no.3 and an amount of Rs.39,887/- paid by the insurance company in the loan account statement on 26.10.2018.

9.             As per the complainant, he has taken a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from OP no.1 on 05.12.2016. On the same day he has taken a life insurance policy Ex.C1 from OP no.3. The complainant filled the name of both Surinder Jain and Ansul Jain in the policy form but the policy was issued only in the name of the complainant. On 17.08.2018 Surinder Jain expired. The complainant applied for the rectification of the policy. The policy was rectified and OPs issued two policy as Ex.C3 in the name of complainant an d Ex.C4 in the name of Surinder Jain on 29.08.2018. The date of commencement in both the policies is 5.12.2018. The initial sum assured in the policy Ex.C3 is Rs.2,60,087/- and Rs.39,887/-  in the policy Ex.C4.

10.            As per the OPs no.1 and 2 the insured amount to the tune of Rs.39,889/- has been paid/adjusted in the loan account of the complainant on 26.10.2018 by the OP no.3 and nothing is pending qua the insured amount.

11.            As per the condition no.5 of insurance policy Ex.C1, Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 the complainant /insured can get cancelled the policy within freelook period. Condition no.5 of the policy reproduced as under:-

“Cancellation in the Free-look period: In case you are not agreeable to the general policy terms and conditions, you have the option of returning the policy to us stating the reasons thereof, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. On receipt of your letter alongwith the certificate of insurance, we shall arrange to refund you the premium, subject to deduction of the proportionate risk premium for the period on cover, the expenses incurred by us on stamp duty. A policy once returned shall not be revived, reinstated or restored at any point of time and a new proposal will have to be made for a new policy.”

 

The policy in question (Ex.C1) had taken by the complainant on 5.12.2016 with commencement date 14.12.2016. The father of the complainant expired on 17.08.2018. It is not a case of the complainant that he has not received the policy Ex.C1 in time. The complainant had liberty to surrender/cancel the policy in freelook period, but complainant did not raise any objection during freelook period.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 01.10.2019                                                              

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member