BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 14th July 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 11/2015
Complainant/s:
Devappa s/o.Durugappa,
Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Ramadurg, Post.Chikkamadinal, Tq. Gangavati, Dist.Koppal.
(By Sri.M.V.Mudgal, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
- Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd floor, Vernekar Plaza, Deshapande Nagar, Opposite to UTI Bank, Hubli 580029.
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 11th floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011.
(By Sri.J.M.Patil, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to refund premium paid amount of Rs.12,400/-, Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings in all to pay Rs.97,400/- with interest @12% and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, complainant had taken HDFC standard life insurance policy belongs to the respondent.2 from its agent at Koppal. While canvasing the policy the agent of respondent.2 had assured several benefits and induced the complainant to subscribe for the policy, as such the complainant subscribed for the policy by paying Rs.12,400/- towards the premium on 20.03.2014. The assured amount was Rs.56,811/-. On 09.04.2014 the complainant received the policy. On going through the policy the complainant was not satisfied with the policy conditions and benefits as such on 10.07.2014 the complainant wrote letter to the respondents main branch with a request to cancel the policy as per the terms and conditions cancellation in the free look period within 14 days. Despite of it, the respondent did not refund the amount. On 29.09.2014 the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent calling upon to refund the amount. Despite service of notice the respondents neither replied nor complied. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent.1 and 2 appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that the very complaint is not maintainable and the complaint averments are misconceived and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the answering respondent taken contention that the cancellation was not made within the stipulated date. Hence, the respondents not refunded the amount. That apart during the month of March 2015 the complainant paid 2nd premium as such the policy is in force. Hence, there does not arise question of causing deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit. The complainant relied on documents. Apart from argument complainant also filed notes of argument. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
1. Affirmatively
2. Accordingly
3. As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant has subscribed for the policy in question and also paid 1st premium.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the complainant cancelled the policy within the prescribed period of 14 days from the date of receipt of the bond as per the cancellation in the free look period conditions. So also whether the complainant paid 2nd premium in the month of March 2015 as alleged by respondent and non refund of the premium amount amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. In support of the contention i.e. the complainant had cancelled the bond within 14 days from the date of issuance of the policy according to the terms and conditions of cancellation in the free look in condition the complainant relied on policy bond cover Ex.C5 and cancellation letter Ex.C6. On perusal of Ex.C5 on the rear side of the bond cover (bond packet) it, bears postal seal dtd.09.04.2014. The complainant wrote letter to the Branch Manager as per Ex.C6 on 25.04.2014. The same was acknowledged with the seal by the respondent. Taking into consideration of these facts it is evident that the complainant has cancelled the bond within 14 days of receipt of the same and he complied free look period conditions. At the same time the respondent had taken contention in written version that complainant has paid 2nd premium in the month of March 2015 as such the bond in question in force thereby it is false to allege the said bond has been cancelled by the complainant within 14 days. In support of this contention the respondent except bald allegation did not produced any document to show that the complainant had paid 2nd premium and kept the policy in force and same has not been cancelled by the complainant. Apart from all these at the time of argument the learned counsel for complainant argued that the respondent has not admitted written version within the prescribed period hence it should not be considered. In support of this contention the complainant relied on citation Rajpipla Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Magic Properties Pvt Ltd., & Anr – 2014 CJ 103 NC wherein it is held, order.8 rule.1 of CPC cannot be equated with Sec.13 of CP Act & delayed written version/ written statement could not be accepted. Taking into consideration of both points viz., cancelation of the bond within 14 days of delivery of the bond to the complainant and also for the reason written version is not filed within stipulated period which goes against to the respondent and in favour of the complainant. Accordingly complainant is entitled for refund of amount. As the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service against the respondent, complainant is entitled for the relief.
8. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative and accordingly.
9. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
Complaint is partly allowed. Claim against respondent.1 is dismissed. Respondent no.2 is directed to refund first premium paid Rs.12,400/- with 6% interest from the date of cancellation (25.04.2014) along with Rs.500/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 14th day of July 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
