Dt. of filing – 4/1/2018
Dt. of Judgement – 20/02/2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant namely Sri Gajendra Shaw under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party namely The Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Case of the Complainant in short is that in the month of August, 2007 he was allured through an agent of Opposite Party that if he had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- one time against the insurance policy and paid only Rs.5,000/- annually for nine years then on maturity he will get Rs.4,20,108/- as maturity benefit. Being satisfied Complainant filled up the policy form on 25/8/2007 and submitted it on 28/8/2007 with his first lump sum premium of Rs.50,000/- in cash. On 30/8/2007 Opposite Party sent the petitioner a policy being no.11251277 assured sum of Rs.4,20,108/-. It was mentioned that if the Complainant survived that he would be entitled to said maturity benefit on maturity date i.e. on 28/8/2017. Thereafter the Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party as premium on various dates and he has paid total sum of Rs.95,000/- to the Opposite Party as premium. On the date of maturity i.e. on 28/8/2017 Complainant went to the office of Opposite Party claiming the insurance policy assured benefits. Opposite Party offered petitioner only Rs.91,356/- . So the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant for directing the Opposite Party to refund of Rs.4,20,108/- towards the maturity benefit with interest, to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, the documents relating to the policy, the demand notice sent by the Complainant, the reply by the Opposite Party and premium receipt.
Opposite Party is contested the case by filing written version denying the allegation made in the complaint petition stating inter alia that Complainant though had purchased one HDFC Standard Life Savings Assurance Plan being no.11251277 on 28/8/2007 where total sum is assured of Rs.4,20,108/- for ten years with annual premium of Rs.50,000/- . But the Complainant thereafter requested the Opposite Party and asked to reduce the premium amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/- due to his personal financial difficulties. Opposite Party duly considered the request of the Complainant and reduced the premium amount and sent the revised policy parameters the sum assured was Rs.52,696/- and policy premium was Rs.5,000/- per annum. As per revised policy Opposite Party offered Rs.91,356/- as maturity amount. So the Complainant is not entitled to the original assured sum of Rs.4,20,108/- and thus prayed for dismissal of this case.
During the course of evidence both the parties adduced their respective evidence followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto. Ultimately argument has been heard of both the sides. Complainant has also filed written notes of argument.
So the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in rendering services on the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point Nos.1 & 2
Both these points are taken up together for comprehensive discussions.
Claim of the Complainant that he had purchased a policy being no.11251277 from the Opposite Party is an admitted fact. It is also an admitted fact that originally the assured sum was Rs.4,20,108 as benefit on the maturity of the said policy. Complainant paid the first premium of Rs.50,000/-. However, it is claimed by the Complainant that he was made to believe by the agent of the Opposite Party that annual first premium only will be of Rs.50,000/- and remaining nine premiums was only of Rs.5,000/- annually.
On perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant annexed with the complaint petition we find that it is categorically stated therein that sum assured was Rs.4,20,108/-. The benefit term was for ten years and premium Rs.50,000/-. Document issued is dated 28/8/2007. In the said policy document it is categorically mentioned that total premium payable per frequency is Rs.50,000/- indicating that the premium payable was Rs.50,000/- annually for the said term of ten years. The document is duly signed by the Complainant. In the complaint petition, Complainant has stated that he received the policy on 30/8/2007. He had paid first lump sum premium of Rs.50,000/- on 28/8/2007. So if the Complainant has received the policy on 30/8/2007 then he ought to have noticed that the premium was payable of Rs.50,000/- annually for the remaining nine years. He did not raise any objection against the said policy received by him on 30/8/2007. Neither he made any application before the Opposite Party to cancel it on the ground that the premium payable was Rs.50,000/- per year but he was made to believe that the premium payable was Rs.5,000/- for remaining nine years.
It is the specific contention of the Opposite Party that a letter was written by the Complainant dated 12/08/2008 requesting the Opposite Party to reduce the premium from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/- against the policy due to his personal circumstances and so on consideration of his request the premium amount was revised to Rs.5,000/- in place of Rs.50,000/- and the per frequency of premium was only Rs.5,000/- annually and sum assured was Rs.52,696/- in place of Rs.4,20,108/- .
On perusal of letter dated 12/8/2008 and also revised policy where premium was reduced to Rs.5,000/- bears the signature of the Complainant. Complainant has received the said revised policy putting his signature on 29/8/2008. It appears that the Complainant has not challenged the signature appearing in the said two documents. However, in his evidence he has stated “at the time of policy of Opposite Party they also signed two blank papers from me and astonishingly I am surprised that they put it in their written version and duly filled up with colourble and false statement of me which I never written them”. The above made statement of the Complainant suggest that the Opposite Party had obtained the signature in two blank papers but the revised policy bearing the signature of the Complainant is a computerized document and the letter dated 12/08/2008 is hand written. So obtaining the signature in the blank papers especially the revised policy apparently, cannot be accepted.
In this context it may also be pertinent to point out that when a person signs a document containing contractual terms is bound by them even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. But if the document is not signed being merely delivered to him, then the question arises whether the terms of the contract was adequately brought to his notice ? Normally parties are bound by such contract. When a party to the contract disputes binding nature of signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign (Reliance is placed in case law Bharathi Knitting Company Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd reported in (1996) “Supreme Court Cases 704.
It may be pertinent to point out that a proceeding before District Forum is summary in nature and so before this Forum there is apparently no evidence to substantiate the claim that two documents referred to by the Opposite Party has been forged.
Apart from this according to Complainant he has paid a total amount of Rs.95,000/- to the Opposite Party towards the said policy. But on perusal of the receipts filed by him it appears that there are only four receipts dated 18/7/2013, 2/6/2015, 8/9/2015 and 19/8/2016. So if those receipts are taken into consideration than the claim of Complainant that he has paid a total sum of Rs.95,000/-, is not correct. Moreover, he has paid two premiums in the same year i.e. in June and September, 2015. So on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances as discussed above we find that the Complainant has not been able to establish his case and thus not entitled to the relief as prayed.
These points are answered accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/4/2018 is dismissed on contest.
