Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 496
Instituted on : 12.10.2018
Decided on : 15.07.2024.
- Vinod Kumar age 50 years s/o Sh. Dev Pal Singh.
- Geeta Rani Nandal age 44 years, w/o Sh. Vinod Kumar.
Both Rs/o 1107, Sector-3, Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
Regional Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited Office at Ashoka Plaza, Opposite Myna Restaurant, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
…….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that in the month of March-April, an agent namely Parteek Singh of opposite party telephonically influenced the complainant to purchase a policy amounting to Rs.50000/-. Hence the complainant had purchased the said policy. Thereafter the above agent again made a call and told the complainant that in case the complainant purchases two policies amounting to Rs.One lac each, in that event, in a draw organised by the respondents, the complainant will certainly win a “SUV Mahindra 500” top model. But prior to purchase of above said policies, the alleged agent again made a call to the complainant and told that the company has changed the rules that minimum investment for draw has been fixed to Rupees three Lacs and the complainant will have to make more investment. Accordingly the complainant purchased four policies from the respondent initially amounting to Rs.50000/-, secondly two policies amounting to Rs.Two lacs i.e Rs.one lac each and thirdly Rs.72590/- total amounting to Rs.322590/-. Thereafter the agent of respondent asked the complainant to make some investment to the tune of Rs.3 lacs in the name of their son and also told many glamorous plans. Then the complainant have some doubt on the agent and he intended to visit personally at the address of respondent at Delhi. When the complainant went to Delhi, the agent could not show his identity proof and made lame excuses of closing of office and asked the complainant to visit the office of respondent at Rohtak. On visit, complainant was surprised to know that his first policy amounting to Rs.50000/- was cancelled by the respondent due to non finding of address which is an automatic procedure of the respondent. He was further told that his two policies amounting to Rs.one lac each have been delivered to his address and the forth policy amounting to Rs.72590/- was under process. But neither the complainant received any information of cancellation of first policy nor received the subsequent policies. So he requested the respondent to cancel all the remaining three policies but they refused for the same and told the complainant that he can only cancel one policy of Rs.72590/- as the same was under process. Then complainant got cancelled the policy amounting to Rs.72590/-. But the other two policies were neither cancelled nor delivered to the complainant. It is further contended that when the first policy was cancelled by the respondent due to incorrect address then how the other two policies can be delivered at the same address. Complainant also approached the Ombudsman and he was asked to submit the original policies but the complainant failed to submit the same as the same were never delivered to the complainant. Complainant made a complaint to IRDA vide complaint no.12-14-024399 but his problem was not resolved. The opposite party also refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.199998/- pertaining to two policies alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainantsas explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared on various dates but failed to file reply and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.08.2019 of this Commission due to non appearance.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed his evidence on 06.01.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.The complainant had purchased a policy of Rs.50000/- from the opposite party but the same was cancelled by the insurance company due to non verification of residential address. The agent told the complainant that if he would purchase another two policies, his amount would be refunded by the company. Then complainant purchased two policies of Rs.99999/- each bearing no.16082095 and policy no.16083744. But the alleged policies were not received by the complainant. Thereafter under the influence of agent of the opposite party, he purchased one more policy of Rs.72590/-. Complainant was communicating with the agent only through telephone. But to know the real facts, he visited the office of opposite parties at Delhi but the agent stopped him to meet with the officials of company but when he met with the officials of respondent, he came to know that his first policy of Rs.50000/- was cancelled due to non-confirmation of address, which is automatic procedure of the opposite party. But on this address two more policies of Rs.99999/- each i.e. policy no.16082095 in the name of Vinod and another policy bearing no.16083744 in the name of his wife Geeta Rani were sent. As per opposite party, they delivered the policy no.16082095on 30.05.2013 and the other policy no.16083744 on 29.05.2013. As the complainants did not receive the above policies so they moved several complaints w.e.f. August 2013 continuously to the opposite parties to refund the amount but despite their repeated requests, amount has not been refunded to the complainant. To prove their case complainants have placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18. As per the letter Ex.C8, opposite party has replied that they have not received the cancellation request from the complainant within the free look period of 30 days, so they were unable to process a refund of premium paid towards the aforesaid policy. In this regard, it is observed that when the policy holder had not received policy, then how he/she can send the cancellation request within 30 days. Free look period starts from the date of receiving of policy, but when the policy was not received by the complainants, they were unable to send the cancellation request within free look period. On the other hand opposite party neither appeared nor file any document to prove the fact that the policies were ever received by the complainant. As such the plea taken by the opposite party is not believable. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the amount of policies to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.199998/-(Rupees one lac ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from June 2013 to till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service aswell as Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
