DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 697 of 10-11-2014

Decided on : 30-10-2015

Sukhdev Singh, aged about 68 years, S/o Sh. Sarup Singh, R/o Village Kot Bhara, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, Centrum Plaza, 5^th Floor, Tower-B, Sector 53, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon 122002 through its Managing Director

2. Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, C/o Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Bathinda, through its Authorized Representative

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Ms. Hem Lata, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for OP Nos. 1 & 2.

Sh. Deepak Gupta, counsel for OP No. 3.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sukhdev Singh, complainant, has filed this complaint against Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (opposite parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he was holding an account with opposite party No. 3. The then Branch Manager of opposite party No. 3 induced the complainant to purchase the policy of Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co. Ltd., and allured him that he shall be provided handsome outputs under the said policy, including life insurance for a sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/- . As per policy, the complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- annually with the opposite party No. 1. After completion of the term of the policy, he was to get handsome amount. It was further represented that complainant shall have right to get the refund of the total amount deposited by him with opposite party No. 1 at any stage after payment of three annual installments of Rs. 50,000/- with opposite party No. 3 alongwith upto date interest and other benefits. Being allured by the tall claims made by opposite party No. 3, the complainant agreed to purchase policy of opposite party No. 1 for which opposite party No. 3 obtained his signatures on various blank printed forms. He also deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 21-08-2009. Later on, the complainant received policy No. 0007365118 from opposite party No. 1. The complainant again deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for two years in the year 2010 and 2011. In this way, the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in three years. After payment of three regular premiums, the complainant approached opposite party No. 2 at Bathinda in the year 2012 and requested that he does not want to continue with the policy and wants to get the refund of total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with upto date interest. The opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant to surrender the original policy and assured him to refund the total amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with upto date interest and other benefits. Accordingly, the complainant surrendered the policy to opposite party No. 2. To utter dismay and surprise of complainant, he received a cheque No. 126257 dated 11-10-2012 for a sum of Rs. 54,702/- only from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. When the complainant inquired about the same from opposite parties No. 2 & 3, they made false assurance that complainant has been refunded only one installment and shall continue to receive two more installments of Rs. 50,000/- with interest in the year 2013 and 2014. The complainant bonafidely believed the assurance of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and got encashed cheque for Rs. 54,702/-.

3. It is alleged that thereafter complainant did not receive any cheque in the year 2013 as per assurance given by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. He also visited the office of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 time and again but they kept on putting the matter off under one or the other pretext. Even after passing of the year 2013, complainant did not receive any cheque. He again approached opposite party No. 2 at Bathinda and opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will get the payment of the total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest within few days, but to no effect. Ultimately in the first week of November, 2014, the opposite parties flatly refused to repay any amount to the complainant and started proclaiming that surrender value of the policy was only Rs. 54,702/-.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the entire balance amount which is approximately Rs. 95,000/- alongwith interest till its realization; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their joint written version before raising preliminary objections and replying on merits, denied averments and contentions made by the complainant in the complaint except those which are expressly adverted to and admitted therein.

6. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 raised preliminary objections that complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 24-A of the 'Act, since it has been filed beyond the limitation period of two years. That complainant is barred by law to file the present complaint in view of the fact that the complainant has accepted the amount of Rs. 54,702.78 which was paid to the complainant under the said policy towards full and final settlement offer. That this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain and present complaint in view of the complexity of facts and allegations of cheating and fraud involved. That complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide. That complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts. That complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. That there has been no misrepresentation, concealment of facts, negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is relevant to mention that in preliminary objections the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have also referred and quoted some case law, the revelation of which is not considered necessary at this stage.

7. After preliminary objections, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 submitted further facts which are stated to be correct facts and liable to be treated correct facts.

   It is stated that after duly understanding upon the terms and conditions of the 'Canara HSBC Life Unit Linked Whole Life Plan' Sukhdev Singh, complainant expressed his willingness to obtain the policy. He duly filled up and signed the proposal form bearing No. 2000083120 dated 21-08-2009. He also signed declaration to the effect that all the terms and conditions of the policy contract were duly explained to him. In the proposal form, it was clearly stated that an annual premium payable shall be Rs. 50,000/- for a period of five years for a sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/-. On the basis of information provided in the proposal form and upon receipt of the premium amount, a policy bearing No. 0007365118 with risk commencement date 22-9-2009 was issued in the name of complainant. The policy was duly sent to complainant on 3-10-2009 and it was delivered to him. It was clearly mentioned in the policy documents that premium payable under the policy was Rs. 50,000/- for a period of five years. A free look period of 15 days was also provided to the complainant to review the terms and conditions of the policy contract and to request for cancellation of the same in case he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy contract. The complainant despite receipt of policy documents did not request for cancellation of the policy, within free look period nor raised any query or concern. The complainant paid three premiums under the policy and thereafter requested for surrender of his policy vide letter dated 19-09-2012. The surrender request of the complainant was processed as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The surrender amount of Rs. 54,702.78 was paid to the complainant through cheque No. 126257 dated 16-10-2012. The policy holder while opting for foreclosure of the said policy was entitled only to the surrender value. The opposite parties have already paid the surrender value, as such no deficiency can be attributed against them.

8. Thereafter the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed para-wise reply to the complaint wherein they have also controverted all the averments and reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections. In the end, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. The opposite party No. 3 filed separate written version wherein it also raised legal objections regarding maintainability of complaint; locus standi; concealment of material facts; estoppel and limitation. It is also alleged that intricate question of law and facts are involved which require voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence which is not possible before this Forum through summary procedure, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. That complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complaint. It is liable to be dismissed with special cost.

10. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is holding an account with the opposite party No. 3 but denied other averments. It is denied that opposite party No. 3 induced the complainant to purchase insurance policy. It is further added that complainant purchased the policy as per his own sweet will. The officials of opposite party No. 3 explained all the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. He purchased the policy of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 by depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- through opposite party No. 3. It is denied that opposite party No. 3 assured the complainant that he shall have right to get the refund of the amount deposited by him with opposite party No. 1 at any stage after payment of three annual installments of Rs. 50,000/- as alleged. It is further added that term of the policy is five years. All the conditions were fully explained to complainant. It is denied that opposite party No. 3 obtained the signature of the complainant on any blank printed form. It is further stated that complainant put the signatures on the proposal form after carefully hearing, understanding and admitting the contents to be correct. In further part of the reply, the opposite party No. 3 corroborated the stand of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and controverted the averments of the complainant.

11. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence documents (Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-11) which included his affidavit dated 7-5-15 (Ex. C-12), photocopy of policy (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of application form (Ex. C-7).

12. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties No.1& 2 have tendered into evidence (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/21) which included photocopy of policy documents (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/9) and photocopy of proposal form (Ex. OP-1/15). Opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 27-7-2015 of Sh. Jarnail Singh Mann (Ex. OP-3/1).

13. Complainant also submitted written arguments.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record and written submissions of the complainant.

15. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his version as set up in the complaint and written arguments. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has filed this complaint on the ground that a sum of Rs. 95,000/- alongwith other benefits is payable by the opposite parties. Of course in written version the opposite parties have denied the claim of the complainant but during pendency of complaint, the opposite parties have paid the amount of Rs. 95,297.22. This fact itself proves that the claim of the complainant was justified. It also proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to compensation as well as litigation expenses.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that although claim of the complainant was not legally sustainable but still the opposite parties have already made the payment to complainant which is accepted by him without any protest. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any further relief.

17. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

18. This Forum can examine the claim of the complainant on the basis of allegation levelled by complainant in the complaint. The complainant has admitted that he received policy. Photocopy of policy is placed on record as Ex. OP-1/3. This document clearly proves that it is a Life/Individual/Non Par/ULIP/Whole Life. Therefore, as per law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in the case 2013 (3) CPJ 203 titled as Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.. The investment made by the complainant is to gain profit. Hence, the investment is for commercial purpose and complainant cannot be termed as consumer under the 'Act'.

19. The matter can be examined from another angle also. As per Section 24-A of the 'Act', the complaint is to be filed within two years from the date of which cause of action has arisen. The opposite parties have also pleaded that complaint is time barred. Therefore, it is to be seen when the complainant got cause of action. In complaint, it is fairly pleaded that complainant wanted to get refund of the amount deposited by him and he was asked to surrender the original policy. He has admitted that he received cheque No. 126257 dated 11-10-2012 for a sum of Rs. 54,702/-. Although the complainant has further pleaded that on inquiry from the opposite parties, they made false assurance that he has been refunded only one installment and he shall continue to receive two more installments of Rs. 50,000/- with interest. This averment of the complainant is categorically denied by the opposite parties. The complainant has placed on record copy of letter as Ex. C-1 vide which he received cheque of Rs. 54,702/-. It is categorically mentioned that no further amounts are payable under the policy and the policy documents shall stand null and void with immediately effect. It was also mentioned that this amount is towards surrendered amount against the policy. Therefore, vide letter dated 9-10-2012, the claim of the complainant was finally settled for Rs. 54,702/- and this fact was made known to the complainant. The complainant got cause of action on receipt of this letter in October, 2012. The complaint was to be filed within two years after received of letter. This complaint was filed in November, 2014 i.e. after expiry of period of limitation.

20. Hence, from both angles, case of the complainant is not proved. Thus, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

21. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

22. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    30-10-2015

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member