DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCCOMPANY LTD
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-1-4
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 10,2014

DEVINDER KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Hdfc Standard Life Insuranccompany Ltd Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ANIL P TADKALKAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.391 of 2013, filed by the complainants (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under: -
"In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is proved or established against the OPs. However, since the complainant has not got the cheque of Rs.1,76,187.91P encashed, which was sent by the OPs (Ann.R -7) nor it has been disputed by the OPs, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to issue fresh cheque of the said amount i.e. Rs.1,76,187.91P in favour of the complainant and send it to him forthwith. We order accordingly. There is no order as to compensation and costs."

(2.)THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant being allured, by the false assurance of the Agent of the Opposite Parties, to get good returns, invested a sum of Rs.3 lacs, vide receipt dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure C -1), in Life Assurance Unit Linked Pension Plus Policy. Policy No.12118339 dated 09.09.2008, alongwith some documents, was received by the complainant, against the said deposit. However, on receipt of the unit statement (Annexure C -3), value of the deposit was shown to be reduced to Rs.1,81,999.53P. It was stated that, thereafter, on asking of the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited further premiums of Rs.10,000/ - each, on 01.09.2009 and 08.09.2010, vide Annexures C -6 and C -7 respectively. As such, the complainant, in all, deposited a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs, with the Opposite Parties.
(3.)THEREAFTER , the complainant did not receive any notice or reminder, for depositing the premium amount. It was further stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties, sent him a cheque dated 16.09.2011, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., showing the Policy as paid -up. It was further stated that no details of the units redeemed and NAV at the time of redemption were furnished. It was further stated that even no reasons, for such redemption were given to the complainant. It was further stated that the said cheque had not been encashed by the complainant. Legal notice dated 26.12.2011, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, to redress the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties of not refunding the entire amount, deposited by the complainant, as premiums, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the balance amount, and compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment.
The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the issuance of Policy, in question, in favour of the complainant. It was also admitted that, a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ -, in all, for three years, towards premiums of the said Policy, was deposited by the complainant. It was stated that the first premium paid by the complainant was Rs.3.00 lacs, but later on, on his request, the premium amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/ - per annum. It was further stated that the complainant signed the proposal form, after going through the entire set of documents, as also the terms and conditions of the proposed Policy. It was further stated that the Policy, in question, was issued, as proposed by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant, while purchasing the aforesaid Policy, duly agreed to bear the risk of investment, in the chosen portfolio. It was further stated that since the renewal/subsequent premium, was not paid by the complainant, in time, therefore, the Policy was converted into a paid -up one. It was further stated that, as such, the complainant was sent a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., through cheque dated 16.09.2011, which was the surrender/ cancellation value of the Policy, as per the terms and conditions thereof (Policy). It was further stated that, the life assured was provided a free -look period of 15 days, within which he could have returned the Policy, and sought refund, in case, the terms and conditions thereof, were not agreeable to him, but he did not do so, but later on, he could not turn round and say that he be refunded the entire amount of premiums. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.