Haryana

Ambala

CC/163/2017

Shivdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Mann

26 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                    Complaint case no.        :  163 of 2017

                                                                    Date of Institution         :  30.05.2017

                                                                    Date of decision   :  26.10.2018

 

Shivdev Singh son of Shri  Niranjan Singh, resident of village Kallarheri Tehsil and District Ambala now resident of 630 Sylvan Ave San Mateo California, through his SPA Amritveer Singh son of Naib Singh, resident of village Mohra, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

1.       The HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch Manager, Nicholson Road, Sighar Palace, Ambala Cantt.

2.       HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, Ist Floor, Sudarshan Towers, Cross Road No.1, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

 

….…. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                  

 

                            

Present:       Sh. Devinder Singh Maan, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. K.Chawla, counsel for OP No.1.  

Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OP No.2.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has opened his account with the OP No.1 bearing A/C No.01311010001299 and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- on 03.12.2011 with OP No.1. After the deposit of the above said amount the complainant departed for California on 06.12.2011. The date of birth of the complainant is 22.12.1953. The mother of the complainant namely Balwant Kaur had expired while living in California in the year 2016 and now the complainant came in India in the year 2017 to perform last rites as per ritual prevailing in the society. The mother of the complainant is having some money lying deposited in the court of Ms. Swati Sehgal, Addl. Civil Judge(Sr. Div)Ambala and the said amount was withdrawn by the complainant  alongwith  other Lrs of Smt Balwant Kaur and for depositing  the amount of share of the complainant, the account number of  the complainant  was required by the court and the complainant approached the O No.1 from where the complainant came to know that the above said amount has been transferred to the OP no.2 in some saving Insurance Policy bearing no.14818388 valid from 31.12.2011 to 30.12.2020 in which premium amount was shown as Rs. 1,99,999/- and sum assured  was shown as Rs. 16,58,495/- which includes death benefit, and maturity benefits and in the said policy the date of birth of the complainant has been manipulated as 02.12.1960 and age at the time of commencement of policy is shown as 51 years for a term of 10 years. The address of the complainant is shown as Mr Shivdev Singh Turk, VPO Kalameri, Ambala Cantt. As a matter of fact, the complainant was residing in California on 31.12.2011 and he left Indian for California on 06.12.2011. The complainant never purchased any policy nor ever intended to purchase any policy from OP No.2 at any point of time and the complainant never put his signature on any papers of insurance policy.  The complainant also served a legal notice dated 06.04.2017 upon the Ops. Thus, the complainants have suffered harassment and mental agony due to the deficient serviced on the part of the Ops. Hence, the present complaint.

 2.               Upon notice, OP No. 1appeared through counsel and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, cause of action, no jurisdiction. On merits, OP No.1 stated that  the premium amount was transferred in the account of OP No.2 for the  purchase of policy on the request of the beneficiary. It is incorrect that the OP No.1 has manipulated any false documents in connivance with the OP No.2. It is also incorrect that there is some ulterior motive or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and submitted written statement and stated that  as required under the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a free Look-in Period of 30 days during which period the policy owner is entitled to review  the policy terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, as per the said delivery of policy bonds to the complainant as  well as other policy holders, they had 30 days free look-in period during  which if not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, the policy  can be got cancelled by the complainants/insured & the premium amount paid by the complainant will be refunded. It is submitted that in the instant case the policy  was issued on 31.12.2011 and same was delivered to the complainant on the address as the mentioned  in application. They further stated that complainants after completely understanding the terms and condition of our product “HDFC SL CLASSIC ASSURE INSURANCE PLAN” had voluntarily  applied for  an insurance policy through proposal forms and signed the same.  In the proposal form, the complainants gave all relevant details and information in the prescribed form, for an assured sum for which annual mode premiums were proposed to be paid annually on for a term of 10 years each. It is pertinent to note that the said form was duly signed by the complainants after understanding all the terms & conditions which duly explained to them. The complainant had neither raised any complaint about miss-selling, forgery/fraud nor raised any objection within the Free Look-in period, though he has received all the policy documents. It is submitted that the complainant has never reported in the past years. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-18 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavits as Annexure R-A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-8 and close their evidence. Counsel for OP No.1 has made the statement that written statement filed on behalf of the  OP No.1 may kindly be read as a part of his evidence  and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsels for both the parties carefully and gone through the case file.

5.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant has opened his account with OP No.1 bearing account no. 01311010001299 deposit a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- on 3.12.2011 but OP no.1 has transferred the amount to OP No.2 in some saving policy bearing no.14818388 valid from 31.12.2011 to 30.12.2020  in which the above said amount has been shown as Rs. 1,99,999/- and some assured was shown as Rs. 16,58,495/-. Although, the complainant has alleged he never purchased any policy from OP No.2 at any point time and complainant has not put his signature or any proposal form of the insurance company i.e. OP No.2. Counsel for the OP has taken the objection that present complaint is not maintainable because complainant has taken the plea in Para No.8 of the complaint that the payment of the aforesaid account of the complainant has been detained by manipulating and misappropriating by the above said insurance company i.e. OP No.2 in the name of the complainant without consent and permission in a wrong and illegal manner. And has thus made themselves also liable criminally prosecuted under Section 420/467/468/471 IPC etc and further taken the plea that the entire particular of the complaint has been shown wrongly.  There is no proper address,  age other particular of the complaint given in the said policy and entire document has been manipulated by the OP No.1 in connivance of the OP No.2.

6.                          In view of the above facts it is clear that complainant has taken the plea qua mis-appropriation of the amount which has been deposited by the complainant with OP No.1 but OP no.1 has wrongly or fraudulently transferred the amount in favour of the OP No.2 and complainant has not put any his signature on proposal form Annexure R-7 produced by OP No.1 for obtaining the policy. So, to ascertain the above said facts whether the Ops have manipulated the documents and complainant has not put his signature on the proposal form or not. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and matter in question cannot be adjudicated in summary manner its requires elaborating and voluminous evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as UCO Bank Vs. Sh. S.D.Wadhwa 2013(4)CLT(NC). Hence, the present complainant is hereby dismissed. However the complainant is at liberty to approach to the appropriate court of law by way of filing the criminal complaint/civil suit as there is specified allegation of fraud and misrepresentation if so advised in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/Forum. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms  of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India in the case titled “Laxmi Engineering works versus  PSG Industrial Institute (1195) 3 SCC page 583.  Copies of the order be sent of parties concerned as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 26.10.2018

.

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)               (D.N. ARORA)

                   Member                                      President