Date of Filing: 16/10/2017
Date of Order: 9/12/2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ARIYALUR
PRESENT: THIRU. DR. V. RAMARAJ. M.L.,Ph.D., PRESIDENT
THIRU.N. BALU B.A., B.L., MEMBER I
TMT.V. LAVANYA B.A., B.L., MEMBER II
C.C.(RBT) NO. 172/2022.
FRIDAY THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022.
1. Mrs. Dagima Mary
2. Mrs. Bridget Mary
3. Miss. Vivane Mary
All residing at
No7, Devi Durgai Amman Koil Street,
Thiruvallur Nagar,
Pammal, Chennai-75 Complainant
Vs
1. The Manager,
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited,
Ramana Towers,
37/38 2nd Floor,
Venkata Narayana Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai -600 017.
2. The Manager,
HDFC Bank,
G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai- 600 017. Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. S.Vijayakumar
M.Nagarathinam
Counsel for the 1st Opposite
Party : M/s.V.Vijaykumar
S. Sivakumar
Counsel for the 2nd Opposite
Party : M/s. T.K.M.Sai Krishnan
Mrs. N.Premalatha
1. This Complaint having come for final hearing before us on 29/11/2022, and upon Perusing the Proof Affidavit ,Documents filed by the complainant and Written Version,Proof Affidavit of 1st and 2nd Opposite Party this Commission passed the Following :-
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. V.LAVANYA B.A,B.L., MEMBER II
ADOPTED BY Dr.V.RAMARAJ M.L.,Ph.D., PRESIDENT & Mr. N.BALU B.A,B.L. MEMBER I.
I. The Complaint was filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 50,000/- payable under the Pension Policy Plan No.13004302, direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant the total sum of Rs.5, 00,000/- as damages with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of complaint till date of payment, direct to pay the cost of the complaint. To punish the opposite parties U/s 27 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 in the event of failure in payment as per the prayer supra.
II. Brief Averments of the Complainant
1. The Complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Joseph Elangovan who died on 27/07/2010. During his lifetime he took a pension policy plan No.13004302 from the 1st opposite party. The deceased Joseph Elangovan nominated his sister violet Mary, as a nominee for claiming the Pension Policy. Due to dispute in the family she did not come forward to coordinate with the complainants as they were the beneficiaries of the Policy taken by the deceased.
2. The Complainants on 02/09/2011 sent a regd., letter to the 2nd Opposite Party under RTI to seek information on the status of the Pension Policy taken by the deceased. On 9/9/2011 the 2nd Opposite Party sent a letter stating that the complainants have to approach the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited for all queries regarding the payment under the pension Policy Plan No.13004302.
3. The Complainants approached the 1st Opposite Party and requested them to furnish the details of the Pension Policy Scheme and pass orders to disburse the benefits Pension Plan Policy availed by the deceased. They were anxiously waiting to receive the benefits of the Pension Policy Scheme from the Opposite Parties
4. The Complainants submit that various claims were received by them through the directions from the High Court as a legitimate claim on 1/06/2011 and 30/01/2012 for which the Claimants were entitled on behalf of the deceased Joseph Ilangovan. Since the Opposite parties would not come under the Purview of Writ Jurisdiction the complainants with no other option left except to approach this H’ble Commission for Redressal of the Grievances.
5. The Complainant submits that Opposite Parties have not bothered to fulfil the Obligations as contemplated in the Policy. No concrete steps were taken by the Opposite Parties for settlement of the claim in spite of several reminders the complainant sent a Legal Notice to the 1st Opposite Party on 06/01/2015.
6. The 1st complainant is the widow with two daughters and are constrained to run from pillar to post to avail the benefits of the Pension Policy scheme by the deceased Joseph Elangovan. The claim is yet to be settled. Therefore the Complainants seek for damages of Rs. 5, 00,000/- as against the Opposite parties and towards the claim payable under Pension Policy Scheme Rs.5, 50,000/- The 1st opposite party are regional head of the 2nd opposite party. Both the parties are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of Service towards the complainant. Hence the complaint.
III. Brief Averments of the 1st opposite party;-
1. The 1st opposite party states that the Complainant’s husband took Unit Linked Pension Plan from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company limited. The Policy inception date is 06/07/2008 And the First premium of Rs.20, 000/- was paid and thereafter did not pay the Premium amount yearly. The Policy term is 10 years and premium term is 10 years. Due to non payment of Premium the Policy has been lapsed. Moreover the Policy holder died on 27/07/2010.
2. It is pertinent to state that there is no sum assured for the Policy. The Policy holder has paid only one Premium for that Policy. As per the policy term and condition the Complainant is not entitled for the claim amount as submitted in the Complaint.
3. The policy was issued to the Complainant’s husband on the basis of duly signed proposal form with declarations. The Policy documents were issued to the Holder with certain terms and conditions.
4. Insurance is a Contract of utmost good faith and the Complainant’s husband is bound to give correct information and strictly bound with terms and conditions of his Policy and its benefits. Therefore the death claim of the Complainant is not maintainable and had to be dismissed.
IV. Brief Averments of the 2nd Opposite party.
1. The 2nd opposite party states that the complainant had filed this complaint on 13/02/2015 to claim insurance benefits of Late Joseph Ilangovan who died on 27/07/2010, from the 1st opposite party with a delay of 520 days. As per the decisions of the honourable Supreme Court in II (2009) CPJ pg 29 SC and 2010 AIR SCW 2528 the DCDRF is not empowered to condone the delay.
2. The Complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose only on 27/7/2010 when Late Joseph ilangovan died on 27/7/2010. The 2nd Opposite Party is unnecessarily arrayed in the Present complaint without any basis the 1st& 2nd Opposite Party is two different legal entities. Therefore the claim under the Insurance Policy Scheme is related only with the 1st opposite party and not this 2nd opposite party. Moreover there is no specific allegation or claim against the 2nd opposite party.
3. The 2nd opposite party submits that in the present case the complainant does not disclose any instance wherein the 2nd opposite party is directly or indirectly involved in the transaction, further there is no privity of contract between the demised person and this 2nd opposite party. Therefore it is clear that the complainants herein had filed this complaint in spite of having knowledge that the said complaint is not maintainable but still the complainant has filed this complaint for the reasons best known to them. Hence this complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
V. Points for consideration
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant’s are entitled for the relief prayed?
A. Point No.1
The Complainants are the Legal heirs of the deceased Joseph Ilangovan who died on 27/07/2010. It is learnt that the deceased Joseph Ilangovan has nominated his sister violet as Nominee to claim the Pension Policy no.13004302. But the complainant has not filed any exhibits to prove that the deceased has taken the Pension Policy from the 1st opposite party. It is observed that the complainant had approached the High Court and got direction to receive the various amount as a legitimate claimant of the deceased Joseph ilIangovan.The 1st opposite party are the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Service Providers. The 1st opposite party has categorically mentioned in their version that the deceased Joseph Ilangovan has availed the ULIP Unit Linked Pension Plan and the Policy inception dated 06/07/2008 and the First Premium of Rs.20, 000/- was paid and thereon he never paid any Premium which was to be paid annually. The Policy term was 10 years and Premium term was also 10 years. Due to non payment of Premium the Policy had lapsed.
2. Based on the terms and conditions of the policy the Policy document was issued to the deceased Joseph ilangovan. As per Insurance laws if the policy has been in force for at least three years continuously then the Insurance Company give two more years to revive the policy by paying the due premiums, but it is perceived that the deceased Insured had paid only one Premium, hence policy had lapsed .No efforts were made to reinstate the lapsed policy .
3. The Complainants have not filed any policy receipts and Policy document to prove their version. The 1st opposite Party have clearly mentioned in their version the contents of the terms and conditions of the Policy that on the death the benefit payable will be unitised fund value. It the death occurs after 15 years from the date of commencement or date of revival whichever is later they will pay benefits for the surviving spouses. The Policy will terminate following a death claim. A paid up policy will get the same benefit on death as a premium paying in force policy. On death the benefit payable will be the money lying in Suspense which is the values of the Unit Less Surrender charges that were transferred to the Suspense at the time of Lapse. No claim investigation will be carried out for such policies. The Policy will terminate immediately. Thus it is clear from the terms and conditions of the 1st opposite party that the Pension Plan Policy has been lapsed.
4. Regarding the 2nd opposite party there is no privity of contract between the deceased Joseph Ilangovan and the 2nd opposite party. It is observed that no allegations and relief are made out from them. Moreover the 2nd opposite party is separate legal entity and governed by the Banking Sectors institutions. Hence no relief can be claimed from them and they do not come under the Purview of Deficiency of Service.
5. From the Exhibits filed by the Complainants it is admitted that they are the legal Heirs of the deceased Joseph Ilangovan. The complainants have not filed any documents to substantiate their versions about the Pension Plan Scheme there is ambiguity in the claim amount. Therefore as the criteria for either the Surrender of the Policy or the death claim of the policy have not been met as per the policies terms and conditions, there is no reason to entertain this claim. Hence we opine that the complainants have failed to prove their case by adducing concrete evidence. Hence no deficiency of service is perceived against the opposite parties. Point No.1 is answered against the Complainant’s.
B. Point No.2
Based on the discussions in Point No.1, Point No.2 is answered that the complainant’s are not entitled for any reliefs as prayed. Hence point No. 2 is answered as against the Complainant’s.
In the result, this commission is passing following orders;
1. The Complaint is dismissed as not Proved.
2. No cost
`Typed by Member II, Corrected by Steno and Pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this the 9th Day of December 2022.
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
Complainant side Documents:-
S.No | Date | Description | Remarks |
ExA1 | 20/08/2010 | Death Certificate of Joseph Ilangovan issued by the Corporation of Greater Mumbai | Xerox |
ExA2 | 07/10/2010 | Legalheirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar Alandur, in favour of the complainants | Xerox |
ExA3 | 10/08/2011 | Order in W.P No.1570/2011. | Xerox |
ExA4 | 02/09/2011 | Letter from the 1st complainant to the 2nd opposite party | Xerox |
ExA5 | 09/09/2011 | Reply from the 2nd opposite party to the 1st complainant. | Xerox |
ExA6 | 25/10/2011 | Lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to the 1st opposite party | Xerox |
ExA7 | 30/01/2012 | Order in W.P.No.809/12 | Xerox |
ExA8 | 06/01/2015 | Lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant counsel to the 1st opposite party along with AD. | Xerox |
ExA9 | 06/02/2015 | Representation from the 1stComplainant to the 1st Opposite party along with the receipt. | Xerox |
ExA10 | 10/02/2015 | Lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant counsel to the 1st opposite party along with receipts. | Xerox |
1st Opposite party documents: - NIL
2nd Opposite party documents: - NIL
Complainant side Witness:
Mrs.Dagima Mary (Complainant)
1st Opposite Party Witness;
Mr. Vinay Prakash (Senior Manager Legal)
2nd Opposite Party Witness;
Mr. Poongavanam
N. BALU V.LAVANYA V.RAMARAJ
MEMBER I MEMBER II PRESIDENT
