Bommala Deva filed a consumer case on 25 May 2015 against The Branch Manager in the Visakhapatnam-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/310/2011 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Jun 2015.
Date of Registration of the Complaint:22-08.2011
Date of Order:25-05-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT
VISAKHAPATNAM
3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,
Male Member
Monday, the 25th day of May, 2015.
CONSUMER CASE No.310/2011
Between:-
Bommala Deva, S/o Sanyasi, Hindu, aged
30 years, R/at 6-1-46, Prakash Nagar,
Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam.
….. Complainant
And:-
1.The Branch Manager, HDFC Standard Life
Insurance Co., Ltd., Visakhapatnam Rednam
Gardens Branch, 1st floor, Rednam Alcazar,
Old Jail Road, Rednam Gardens, Visakhapatnam.
2.G.Ravichandran, Vice President Operations,
HDFC (Standard Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Raman House, HT Parekh Marg. 169, Back Bay
Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020.
… Opposite Parties
This case coming on 07.04.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Kuppili Muralidhar, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri T.V.S.K. Kanaka Raju, Smt. M.A.S. Prabha, Sri D. Appa Rao and Sri V. Satish, Advocates for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)
1. This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties directing them to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- along with accrued interest and costs.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had taken a policy from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company vide Policy No. 12752629 from the 1st Opposite Party and at that time they have not disclosed the essential features of the scheme, but he paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 18.03.2009 and a receipt was issued for the same by the Senior Vice-President, Operations of the Company vide Policy No.12752629, for plan being named United Linked Pension-II. After waiting for 3 months he was shocked office life on coming to know the terms and conditions that were disclosed to him for the first time that premium had to be paid yearly. Whereas at the time of taking policy he was told that it was the premium that once in a life time payment and he was assured of lump sum amount after 18 years on that he roam around the office of the 1st Opposite Party seeking refund of the amount, but in vain. Hence, this Complaint.
3. The Case of the Opposite Parties denying the material averments of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant after satisfying himself only, applied for issuance of policy and upon payment of premium payable, the policy was properly issued and now with a view to take back his money he came with false averments. The Complainant has been explained the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of issuance. The Complainant therefore, cannot take back his words with dishonest intentions. After making payment of first premium, the Complainant did not make subsequent payments as such the policy got lapsed/terminated and the only premium that was paid has been appropriated towards charges as provided under the schedule of charges etc. Further the very demand of refund of entire premium paid is contrary to the terms and condition of the policy and cannot be entertained by the Opposite Party. The Complaint is not maintainable under law and it is also barred by law of limitation. There is no deficiency of service, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. To prove the case on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his sworn affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand, the Opposite Parties, they filed their evidence affidavit. No documents were marked for the Opposite Parties.
5. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of First Premium Receipt along with Statement of Account issued by the Opposite Parties in favour of the Complainant dated 18.03.2009. Ex.A2 is the Policy copy and terms and conditions of the letter issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant dated 19.03.2009. Ex.A3 is the office copy of letter issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant dated 23.02.2010.
6. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.
7. Heard oral arguments from both sides.
8. Now the points that arise for determination is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation and costs.
9. The first contention of the Opposite Party is that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It is a fact, as seen from record that the Complainant paid the first premium on 18.03.2009 now the present complaint is filed on 5.8.2011 for refund of the premium amount paid on 18.03.2009 for Rs.40,000/-. The Complainant averments discloses the cause of action for the complaint arose on 18.03.2008. Admittedly there is no demand by the Complainant by way of registered notice etc. The Complainant has to file the complaint within 2 years from the date of payment of premium firstly on 18.03.2008. Admittedly, he filed the present complaint after 30 months of payment. Thus it can be held that the Complainant filed by the present complaint is not within time and it is barred by limitation.
10. It is evident as seen from record, after payment first premium of the Complainant did not make subsequent payments. According to the Complainant, he was told at the time of issuance of policy the premium for once in a life time payment and he was assured lump sum amount after 18 years. According to the Opposite Parties at the time of issuance of policy they have been explained the Complainant the terms and conditions of the policy and the Complainant has submitted a duly signed proposal form for issuance of policy and also confirmed in Section-E (declaration) of the application form that the Complainant had read and understood the terms and conditions of the insurance policy opted by him. Exs.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly and categorically discloses the same. On a careful reading of Ex.A2 policy muchless other exhibits, we are of the considered view, that after knowing the terms and conditions of the policy the Complainant obtained the policy in question, but for the reasons best known to him as an afterthought he filed the present complaint in order to take back his money. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that there are no merits in the complaint. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 25th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- sd/ sd/-
Male Member Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
For the Complainant:-
NO. | DATE | DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS | REMARKS |
Ex.A01 | 18.03.2009 | First Premium Receipt along with Statement of Account issued by the Ops in favour of the Complainant | Photo copy |
Ex.A02 | 19.03.2009 | Policy copy and terms and conditions of the letter issued by the Ops to the Complainant | Original |
Ex.A03 | 23.02.2010 | Letter issued by the Ops to the Complainant | Office copy |
For the Opposite Parties:-
-Nil-
Sd/- sd/- sd/-
Male Member Lady Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.