DATE OF FILING : 10-09-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 05-02-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19-05-2015.
Subrata Kumar Baksi,
38, Baikuntha Chatterjee Lane,
Howrah, West Bengal,
PIN 711101.....................................................................................COMPLAINANT.
1. The Manager,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Limited,
26A, Hindustan Park, Gariahat, Shopping Mall, 1st Mall,
Kolkata 700029.
2. Managing Director,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
13th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound,
N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai,
PIN 400011...........................................................................................OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Member In Charge : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Member : Shri Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, namely Subrata Kumar Baksi, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 50,000/-, purchase price of the policy, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs and cancel the policy in question along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased two life insurance policies being policy nos. 15970429 & 15969378 under Plan HDFCSL Classic Assure from o.ps. on payment of Rs. 50,000/- in total. O.ps. also assured the complainant that he would get at least 12% interest per annum along with the principal for three years. But after receiving the policy documents complainant noticed that is required to continue with the policies upto 2023 which is really impossible for the complainant. So complainant requested the o.p. to revise the documents vide Annexure III collectively. Thereafter complainant sent several letters to the Grievance Officer, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., to cancel the policies in question and return the deposited amounts. O.ps. refused to refund the deposited premiums on the ground that free-look period is over. So, finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notice was served. O.p. appeared but not filed any written version.
Accordingly, case was heard ex parte.
- Two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition along with annexures filed by the complainant and noted its contents. Complainant purchased two policies from the o.p. company on good faith after being highly allured by the agent of the o.p. company. It is so unfortunate that after receiving the policy documents, complainant understood that the men of the o.p. company misled him and did not disclose clearly the terms and conditions of the policies in questions. In this case complainant was completely under an impression that he is to invest once for all and would get periodical interest amount regularly which could have satisfied his financial need. But in reality he is required to pay upto 2023. People invest their hard earned money in a reputed company to get the ultimate benefit at their need. Complainant made those investments foreseeing his future needs. If that criteria is not fulfilled due to o.ps.’ severe negligence, complainant is, thereby, truly prejudiced which can be very well understood by a man of common prudence. It is our common knowledge that now-a-days insurance company appoint such kind of agent who has no ethics and the company like o.p’s. also does not care to train their agents for the benefit of the people at large. They are only interested to accumulate fund from the market and make a huge profit out of it which does not lead to achieve consumer satisfaction. O.ps. have also forgotten that their ultimate success depends on consumer satisfaction. Moreover, no W/V has been filed by them which clearly shows that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the complaint petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. And we have no difficulty to believe the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. O.ps. have miserably failed to keep promise which certainly amounts to deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. And we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 494 of 2014 ( HDF 494 of 2014 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are directed to refund Rs. 50,000/- being the deposited amounts in terms of the insurance policies in question within one month from this order and cancel the policies in question with immediate effect.
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost and o.ps. are directed to pay the same within one month from this order i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member In Charge, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
