DATE OF FILING : 11.4.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  22nd  day of  February, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P    MEMBER

CC NO.134/2014

Between

Complainants       :  1.   Dr. M. Jayaprakash Moolamkulam,

     Moolamkulam House,

     Muthalakkodam P.O., 

     Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

2.  Victoria Sherly Mendez, 

             W/o. Late Dr. Jayaprakash,

     Moolamkulam House,

     Muthalakkodam P.O., 

     Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

3.  Jaishy J. Moolamkulam,

         D/o. Dr. M. Jayaprakash & 

         W/o. Joshan George,

     Moolamkulam House,

     Muthalakkodam P.O., 

     Thodupuzha, Idukki.  

4.  Jishen J. Moolamkulam, 

         S/o. Dr. M. Jayaprakash,

     Moolamkulam House,

     Muthalakkodam P.O., 

     Thodupuzha, Idukki. 

    (All by Advs:  Chittoor Rajamannar

& Dilip Chittoor)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  The Manager,

       HDFC Standard Life Insurance 

Co. Ltd.,

       Thodupuzha Branch, 

       Near Private Bus stand, 

      Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki. 

      (By Advs:  Saji Issac 

   & Sijimon K. Augustine)

  2.  Roy Antony, 

       Sales Manager,

       Agency Code No.00446217,

       HDFC Standard Life Insurance

    Co. Ltd.,                    (cont…..2)

-  2  -

 

     Thodupuzha Branch, 

      Near Private Bus stand, 

      Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

3.  Sujith Surendran, 

        Sales Manager,

      Agency Code No.00501012,

       HDFC Standard Life Insurance

    Co. Ltd.,    

      Thodupuzha Branch, 

      Near Private Bus stand, 

      Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.

4.   HDFC Standard Life Insurance

    Co. Ltd.,  

       11th Floor, Lodha Excelus,

       Appollo Mills Compound,

      N.M. Joshi Marg,  Mahalexmi,

      Mumbai – 400 011.

      Registered Office :

                Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor,

       Appollo Mills Compound,

      N.M. Joshi Marg,  Mahalexmi,

      Mumbai – 400 011, Maharashtra.

     (By Advs:  Saji Isaac 

& Sijimon K. Augustien)

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

        The complainant is a doctor practising at Thodupuzha.  He availed a housing loan in the year 2002-03 from the Ravipuram branch of the 1st opposite party.  Upon the representations of the agent of the 1st opposite party, he deposited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in the mutual fund of the 1st opposite party.  As per the assurance given by the opposite party, on maturity the amount will become Rs.2 lakhs.  On maturity the 1st opposite party transferred the amount to the account of the complainant on 22.3.2013.  At that time the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties approached the complainant and forced to convert the aforesaid amount into another investment policy as a one time payment and issued two policies.  After that he received a message from the HDFC Life 

(cont…..3)

- 3  -

regarding the due payment of the said scheme.  On enquiry they informed that the said two policies are having five years duration with Rs.98000/- as premium for each policy per year.  The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who are the agents of the 1st opposite party cheated the complainant. So this petition is filed for realizing the amount Rs.2 lakhs with 18% interest from 26.3.2013  and also for compensation.

        A petition has been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 4 challenging the maintainability of this case stating that the policy taken by the complainant is a policy with profit plan.  Being it with profit plan, the policy will be entertained in the  profits of the participating policy holders fund of HDFC Standard Life Insurance company Ltd.  The policy is a speculative investment and is a speculative gain and the matter does not comes under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum and is liable to be dismissed in limine.

        An objection has been filed by the learned counsel for the complainant with a petition to implead the legal heirs of the deceased complainant, who passed away after this petition has been filed.  So the legal heirs of the complainant, his wife, daughter and son are to be impleaded as additional opposite party.

        After hearing both sides, IA No.97/2014, for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased complainant Dr. Jayaprakash, was impleaded as additional complainants 2 to 4.

        Therafter the petition filed by the opposite parties for challenging the maintainability of the complaint numbered as IA No.135/2014, heard and dismissed this IA on 28.11.2014 with detailed order.  This order was challenged by the opposite party 1 and 4 before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as Revision Petition No.30/2016.  After hearing both sides this Revision Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble CDRC on 20.6.2018 by affirming the order of this Forum.

        Opposite parties 1 and 4 filed detailed reply version challenging the maintainability of the complaint as a primary issue.  This issue was heard and decided in favour of the complaint.  The further issues raised by the opposite 

   (cont…..4)

- 4  -

parties in their reply version is that, the complainant is an educated person and he had submitted two proposals for HDFC Life Sampoorn Samridhi Insurance Plan.  This policies were issued to the complainant on the basis of the proposals submitted by him, in which the policy terms premium paying terms and the annual premium was chosen by the complainant himself.

        Opposite parties further contended that, the complainant had accepted the policies after agreeing to the terms and conditions of the policy.  After having taken the policies, the complainant further had an option to return the policy within a period of 30 days on the receipt of the policies.  These opposite parties are not liable for the act of the complainant is not looking into the policies sent to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  Opposite parties denied the version of the complainant that the opposite parties 2 and 3 had impressed upon the complainant that the investment were one time investment and that the complainant had not to make any further investment in the scheme.  Opposite party further contended that the complainant had submitted application for HDFC Life Sampoorn Samridhi Insurance Plan with annual premium of Rs.97003/- and a term of 5 years.  This policy is a Unit linked Insurance Plan and is approved by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority and the payment can only be considered as acceptance of the policies to the full satisfaction of the complainant.  The  complainant after paying the 1st instalment, defaulted payment of the premium.  According to the condition of the policies, if any premium unpaid 15 days after the due date during the first 3 years of the policy, the policy will be altered to lapsed status and no benefit would be payable.  The policies of the complainant lapsed after the payment of the first premium due to the non-payment of second premium and hence according to the conditions of the policies, no benefit is payable.  Hence there has been no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties and these opposite parties has not committed any fraud or cheating.

        Evidence adduced by the wife of the complainant, additional 2nd complainant, by way of proof affidavit and documents. Ext.P1 is the policy copy of policy No.15939749 dated 26.3.2013. Ext.P2 is the policy copy of the policy having No.15940270 dated 27.3.2013.  Ext.P3 is the copy of letter dated 

   (cont…..5)

- 5 -

26.3.2014.   Ext.P4 is the letter of acknowledgement issued by the 4th opposite party dated 27.3.2014.  Ext.P5 is the letter of acknowledgement dated 27.3.2014.  Ext.P6 is the letter dated 29.3.2014.  Ext.P7 is the letter dated 29.3.2014.  Ext.P8 is the copy of death certificate. Ext.P9 is the copy of legal heirship certificate.  Ext.P10 is the discharge summary of Amritha Hospital.  Ext.P11 is the case summary and discharge card.  Ext.P12 is the histopathological report.  Ext.P13 is laboratory report.  Ext.P14  is laboratory report.  Ext.P15 laboratory report.  Ext.P16 is laboratory report. Ext.P17 is ultrasound report.  Ext.P18 is laboratory report. Ext.P19 is laboratory report.  Ext.P20 is laboratory report. Ext.P21 discharge summary.  Exts.P22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are the laboratory reports.

        From the defence side, no oral or documentarily evidence is adduced.

        Heard both sides.

        The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of   opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?             

        The POIUNT :-  We have heard the counsels for both the parties and had gone through the record.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, due to the inducement of the agents of the 1st opposite party, the complainant forced to convert his deposit in to another investment scheme as a one time payment.  The name of the agents of the 1st opposite party is specifically stated as Roy Antony, Agency Code No.00446217 and Sujith Surendran, Agency Code No.00501012.  Since the above said persons are the authorised agents of the 1st opposite party, complainant was induced to believe them and as assured by them, the complainant had issued cheque on 26.3.2013 of Rs.2 lakhs.  Subsequently, the opposite party issued two policies for the said 2 lakhs having numbers 15940270 and 15939749 respectively.

        The learned counsel further pointed out that, the complainant had received the postal article issued by the 4th opposite party on 12.4.2013, since he had fully believed the representation of opposite parties 2 and 3.  He did not scrutinized the postal articles and he had not felt the necessity for the same since the transaction appeared to be in good faith, more over the deceased (cont…..6)

- 6  -

complainant was a busy doctor.  In addition to it, the agents of the 1st opposite party had impressed upon the complainant that the investment were one time investment of Rs.1 lakh each and the complainant had not to make any further investment in the scheme.  Subsequently, the complainant received a message from the HDFC Life regarding the due payment for the said scheme, until this the complainant strongly believed that the scheme was of one of one time payment.  Immediately after the receipt of the message, the complainant enquired about it and had realized that he was cheated by the agents of the 1st opposite party. Immediately he responded to it. 

        The counsel further pointed out that, the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party vitiated by fraud and the act of the opposite parties are a sheer unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to get the money back and the opposite parties are legally bound to repay the amount with interest, damages and cost to the complainant.  

        On going through the averments in the complaint and the point of arguments alongwith the evidence on record, the Forum found that, none of the points which the learned counsel narrated or none of the documents which were produced on the side of the complainant was challenged by the opposite party with clear and cogent evidence.  Eventhough opposite party filed a detailed reply version, no evidence is produced to corroborate their pleadings.  In this case, the complainant specifically stated the name of the authorised agents of the 1st opposite party who were approached the complainant and induced him to took the policies under challenge.  These two agents are arrayed as opposite parties 2 and 3.  They kept mum against the allegation levelled against them by the complainant.  That  is a clear admission on their part and it is very clear that these two opposite parties are acted for an on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 4, since their part is not specifically denied by the opposite parties 1 and 4 with sufficient materials.

        On the basis of above discussion, complainant allowed.  Opposite parties 1 and 4 are directed to repay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 12% from 26.3.2013 to the legal heirs of the deceased complainant, that 

 

(cont…..7)

- 7 -

is the additional complainants 2 to 4, along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost, jointly within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February, 2019

    Sd/-

     SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

   Sd/-

               SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Victoria Sherly Mendez.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1      -  policy copy of policy No.15939749 dated 26.3.2013. 

Ext.P2      -  policy copy of the policy having No.15940270 dated 27.3.2013.  

Ext.P3      -  copy of letter dated 26.3.2014.   

Ext.P4     - letter of acknowledgement issued by the 4th OP dated 27.3.2014.  

Ext.P5     - letter of acknowledgement dated 27.3.2014.  

Ext.P6     - letter dated 29.3.2014.  

Ext.P7     - letter dated 29.3.2014.  

Ext.P8     - copy of death certificate. 

Ext.P9     - copy of legal heirship certificate.  

Ext.P10   - discharge summary of Amritha Hospital.  

Ext.P11   - case summary and discharge card.  

Ext.P12   -  histopathological report.  

Exts.P13 - P16  - laboratory reports.  

Ext.P17   - ultrasound report.  

Exts.P18 - P20 - laboratory report. 

Ext.P21   - discharge summary.  

Exts.P22 - P27 - laboratory reports.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT