Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/321/2013

K.Sundraraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Karthik , Mukundan

04 Jan 2022

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint Filed: 03.10.2013

                                                                                                                                       Date of Reservation        : 26.11.2021

                                                                                                                                       Date of Order                  : 04.01.2022

                                                   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:    Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                  Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.321/2013

TUESDAY, THE 4^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

K.Sundararaman,

No.1, Devanathan Colony,

B-4, Praveen Vetrivela Apartment,

West Mambalam,

Chennai 600 033.                                                                                                                                   .. Complainant                                        

..Versus..

 

1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited,

   Represented by Circle Head, T.Nagar, Mr. Rajan B. Mathew

   37/38, Ramana Towers II Floor,

   Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar,

   Chennai 600 017.

 

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited,

   Represented by Managing Director,

   Raman House,

   H.T. Parekh Marg,

   169, Backbay Reclamation,

   Mumbai 400 020.                                                                                                                                 .. Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the complainant        : M/s. Karthik

Counsel for the opposite parties   : M.B.Gopalan

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of both sides and we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of the first premium and direct the opposite parties to compensate the complainant for the non-renewal of policy, loss of benefits amounting to Rs.1 lakh due to the abrupt termination of the policy by the opposite party and compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs for the deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and for the mental agony, stress and woes and worries caused to the complainant by the opposite party and direct the opposite parties to pay the cost.

2.    The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and written argument.  On the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 are marked.   The opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the opposite party documents Ex.B1 is marked.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

3.      The complainant had subscribed to an insurance policy marketed by the 1^st Opposite party namely HDFC Pension super Plan Policy bearing No.13375448 with an annual premium of Rs.25,000/- for a term of ten years. The first premium was paid on 09.01.2010. subsequently, the complainant had also paid the annual premium for the second year i.e. 2011. The policy document was issued by the Opposite Parties to the complainant.

4.     Thereafter, when the premium for the year 2012 became due, on 22.01.2012, the Complainant attempted to pay the premium through the online official portal of the Opposites Parties. While doing so, he saw a warning message popping out in the website saying that the website of the Opposite Parties is unsecured and of high risk. Apprehending some thing wrong with the website, the Complainant aborted the payment and logged out of the website. The complainant sought a clarification with the helpline of the Opposite Parties and was informed by the call centre executive that the website of the opposite party was perfectly safe and the warning message may be ignored. The call centre executive further assured the Complainant that the payments made through the online portal of the  official website of the Opposites Parties are perfectly safe and advised the complainant to go ahead with the online payment of the premium for the third year, i.e. 2012. The complainant had accordingly paid the premium of Rs.25,000/- for the year 2012 through the official website of the opposite party using his credit card on 23.01.2012. the complainant also received a confirmatory message from his credit card company confirming the payment to the Opposites parties.

5.     The complainant came to know that he had made two payments for the same year i.e., 2012 one on 22.01.2012 and the other on 23.01.2012 in respect of the same policy.

 

6.     The complainants states that in June 2012, he was shocked and surprised to receive a telephone call from the helpline of the opposite party stating  that the premium for the said policy for the year 2012 was overdue and hence it had lapsed due to its non-payment. The complainant refused this allegation and requested them to verify their records in this regard as the payment had been confirmed and a receipt was also issued to him for such payment by the Opposite Party.

7.       After persistent efforts, the complainant was informed that his premium was refunded by the opposite party and the same had been credited to his credit card account. On verification with the credit card company revealed that the premium paid on 22.01.2012 had been reversed on his request and that the premium paid on 23.01.2012 through his credit card had not been refunded. When the officers of the 1^st opposite party were confronted with this information, they remained stubborn that they had refunded the premium and refused to give the same in writing for this action.

8.         It is pertinent to state that the opposite party has failed miserably in their duty of renewing the insurance policy of the complainant and allowed it to lapse even after its payment on the due date by the complainant for reasons best known to them.

9.     The opposite party, after seven months from the payment of premium, refused to renew insurance policy but once again asked the complainant to remit the premium amount of Rs.25,000/- along with a fine of Rs.281/-. However, the complainant did not accede to their demand, as the premium payment made on 23.01.2012 was still lying with the insurance company. Now the complainant reliably learns that the opposite party has terminated the insurance policy for non-payment of the premium in spite of the premium being paid by the complainant, which is gross negligence and unfair.

10.    It is pertinent to point that the complainant  never made any request refund of the premium amount paid on 23.01.2012. the annual premiums so far paid i.e. Rs.75,000/- has been illegally forfeited by the opposite party from the innocent and rule abiding consumer / complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.

11.   Written Version of the Opposite parties in Brief:-

        Admittedly, the complainant availed HDFC Pension Super Plan Policy No.13375448 in January 2010. The policy requires payment of annual premium commencing from 09.01.2010 up to 09.01.2019. thus premium is payable on 9^th of January every year.

12.    The Complainant paid premium for 2010 and 2011.

13.    But in January 2012, the opposite party received a payment of Rs.25,000/- on 23.01.2012 online through credit card. The opposite party is neiher aware nor concerned with payment on 22.01.2012 allegedly made by the complainant which they have not received. Perusal of the complainant’s credit card statement shows that the so called payment on 22.01.2012 (which this opposite party was not aware) had been reversed immediately. The said payment was never received by the opposite party. They had received payment on 23.01.2012 only.

14.    While so, the opposite party received a second payment of Rs.25,000/- on 20.02.2012. this payment was also received online through credit card.

15.    On 07.03.2012 the opposite party was intimated of a chargeback request by the complainant with reference No.EVR007274, and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was reversed by HDFC Bank through which payment was received by the opposite party and remitted to the Complainant’s Credit Card account. However, on 09.03.2012, a second chargeback request of the Complainant with reference No.EVR007284 was intimated and another sum of Rs.25,000/- was reversed by the Bank from the opposite party even though it never gave any consent or authorization for the reversal. Thus both the payments were reversed  by the Credit Card provider and the Bank based on separate chargeback requests of the Complainant and the Opposite party’s account was reversed. The complainant has conveniently avoided filing the Credit Card Statement of March 2012 which would have revealed the entries and has also not made the Credit Card provider and Bank as a party.

16.    In view of the above, there was no amount of premium available for 2012 to continue to the Policy and hence it immediately lapsed. Admittedly Complainant was informed of the same. The opposite party submits that the payments made online were also reversed online by the Credit Card provider/ the HDFC Bank and that too based on complainant’s request. Without any premium being available the policy automatically lapsed. The opposite party had committed no deficiency in service.

17.    The complainant is responsible, first for payment twice and secondly for raising two chargeback requests. If there was no fault on his part or he had not made two payments or had not raised two chargeback requests the fault lies elsewhere at the doors of the banking system which reversed both payments received by the opposite party. Instead of pursuing the matter against the Credit Card provider/ the Bank, the complainant is needlessly raising dispute with the opposite party as if there was any fault or lapse on the part of the opposite party. That the Credit Card provider is responsible for the confusion is clear even from the emails and correspondence addressed to them by the Complainant and filed along with the complaint. The Complainant ought to have impleaded and claimed relief against the Credit Card provider and HDFC Bank. Instead he has chosen to avoid making them a party in attempt to claim wrongful reliefs against the opposite party which is being made a scapegoat for the collective commissions and omissions of the Complainant, the Credit Card provider and the Bank.

18.    It is humbly submitted that the opposite party did not have any premium for 2012, after 09.03.2012. it is false to allege that only one refund was received by the complainant. As far as this opposite party is concerned there was a double payment, but both were reversed as aforesaid by the Bank itself on 07.03.2012 and 09.03.2012.

19.    The opposite party received a payment on 23.01.2012 for which a proper receipt was issued. They again received another payment on 20.02.2012 for which another receipt dated 20.02.2012 was received. Thus the two payments received by the opposite party were on 23.01.2012 and 20.02.2012, both of which were reversed on 07.03.2012 and 09.03.2012.

20.    The opposite party had rightly advised that the premium had been reversed and was required to be paid with interest of Rs.281/- for revival of the policy. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

21.    The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get relief as claimed in the complaint?

3.To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

22.     Point No.1

        According to the complainant he had paid two payments  of Rs.25,000/- each on 22.01.2012 and 23.01.2012 for the annual premium of 3^rd year i.e., for the year 2012. But the complainant himself stated that he made attempt to pay the premium amount of Rs.25000/- on 22.01.2012 through the on line official portal of the opposite parties. While doing so, he saw a warning message popping out in the web site saying the web site of the opposite parties is unsecured and of high risk. Apprehending something wrong with the web site, the complainant aborted the payment and logged out of the web site. Therefore, on his own admission complainant had not made payment on 22.01.2012. Further complainant himself submit Ex.A7, credit card statement of the complainant for the month of January 2012 to February 2012. The statement would reveal, that the complainant had made payment to the opposite party on 22.01.2012 and the same was reversed on that day itself. Therefore the complainant has not made any payment to the opposite party on 22.01.2012. There is no evidence to prove that the complainant had made payment on 22.01.2012. Further complainant has not submitted any document to prove that he had made two payments for the year 2012 premium. On the other hand the opposite party had issued a renewal premium receipt dated 23.01.2012 (Ex.A4) and 20.02.2012 (Ex.A8). The complainant wrongly presumed as if he had paid the premium on 22.01.2012. On request made by the complainant to the credit card company or on his own motion the opposite parties have  charge back the amount of premium which was paid by the complainant dated 23.01.2012 and 20.02.2012. Accordingly as per Ex.B1 both the amount were debited by the opposite party in the account of the complainant. In the above document the opposite party had clearly stated as “we had debited your Account No.00600350037748 and processed it on the charge back system in favour of the issuing bank” and the same was confirmed. The above fact was not denied by the complainant.

23.    On perusal of records that complainant himself made two payment instead of one payment for the year 2012. Therefore the deficiency is only on the part of the complainant. Complainant made payment through his Manhattan Credit Card. The said Manhattan Credit Card service provider alone can say when the complainant had made payment and when the complainant had made request to settle the extra payment. Unfortunately complainant has failed to implead the said Manhattan credit card service provider.

24.    Since the complainant has failed to prove that he had made payment on 22.01.2012 and the complainant has not denied that the opposite party had charged back the two payment made by the complainant, we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

25.     Point Nos. 2 & 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly point Nos. 2 & 3 are answered.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  04^th day of January  2022.

 

         T.VINODHKUMAR                                          R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

            MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	09.01.2012	First Premium Receipt issued by the Opposite Party
Ex.A2	09.01.2010	HDFC Pension Super Policy No.13375448 Policy Document issued by the Opposite parties
Ex.A3	21.01.2011	Renewal Premium Receipt issued by the Opposite Party for the Second Premium
Ex.A4	23.01.2012	Renewal Premium Receipt issued by the Opposite party for Rs.25,000/-
Ex.A5	25.01.2012	Email sent by the Complainant requesting refund of excess payment of Rs.25,000/-
Ex.A6	31.01.2012	Email sent by the complainant requesting refund of excess payment of Rs.25,000/-
Ex.A7	03.02.2012	Credit Card Statement of the Complainant for the month Jan 2012 and Feb 2012
Ex.A8	20.02.2012	Receipt issued by the Opposite Party for the 3rd premium for 2012
Ex.A9	02.07.2012	Letter sent by the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party.
Ex.A10	09.11.2012	Email sent by the Complainant to the Standard Chartered Bank
Ex.A11	25.11.2012	Email sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A12	05.02.2013	Email sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A13	05.02.2013	Reply given by the Opposite Party
Ex.A14	09.02.2013	Email sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A15	23.05.2013	Email sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party
Ex.A16	25.05.2013	Email sent by the Opposite Parties  to the Complainant
Ex.A17	16.07.2013	Legal Notice issued to the Opposite parties
Ex.A18	24.07.2013	Acknowledgements
Ex.A19	-	Credit Card Statement for the month March, April, May and June 2012 (Series – 4 Nos.)

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.B1

03.12.2014

Letter from HDFC Bank

 

          T.VINODHKUMAR                                          R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

                 MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT