It is also alleged that on 31-08-2017 a representative namely Mr. Sunil Kumar visited the house of complainant to verify the complainant's present status and he asked for to supply photostat documents i.e. policy documents, identity and address proof and a declaration. The complainant provided the same and after that there is no response has since been received from the opposite parties about the policy. Even after the aforesaid efforts the complainant sent various e-mails to the opposite parties at mail id i.e. service@hdfcsl.com and made so many telephonic calls but no concrete and satisfactory reply was given by the opposite parties. The opposite parties cheated the complainant by discontinuing the policy without disclosing any reason and moreover no Survival Benefit or Installments paid by the complainant were returned.

It is further alleged that at the time of purchasing the policy, the complainant was of 55 years of age and his yearly premium was Rs. 15,019/- now the complainant was at the age of 59 years and now no other insurance company is securing his life or otherwise.

It is also alleged that the complainant is still ready to continue the insurance policy by paying due premium installments but till date the opposite parties are delaying the matter on one pretext to another and are not giving any reason for discontinuance the policy. The complainant is trying from last six months to know the reason from the opposite parties , but they are impliedly denying the claim of the complainant.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to restore the policy in question and pay him compensation amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- alongwith interest and premium installments in addition to additional or alternative relief.

On the statement of learned counsel for the complainant, recorded separately, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 16-1-2018 from the array of the parties.

Upon notice opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the claim of the complainants by filing joint written reply raising legal objections that the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as the opposite parties.

It is pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that the opposite parties deputed investigators to investigate the non-disclosure details if any, by the insured for obtaining insurance policy. The credentials of the assured were found to be under question. The address of the life assured was not traceable and no one confirmed any such identity in the area. The investigator also called telephonically on the number given but his number was found switched off. Therefore, the policy in question was cancelled under intimation to the complainant as per rules legally vide letter dated 20-06-2017 as the policy based on incorrect information is void from inception.

Further legal objections are that there was misrepresentation of profile at the proposal stage for obtaining the insurance policy; that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file this complaint.

On merits, the opposite parties admitted that the insurance policy in question was obtained by the complainant bearing No. 16899959 with sum assured Rs.1,50,000/- and annual premium of Rs, 15019/- for a term of 10 years. However, the policy was obtained by making misrepresentation of profile and therefore, the policy was cancelled vide letter dated 20-06-2017 The opposite parties are ready to refund the premiums as per rules and subject to deduction in accordance with law. It is denied that the replying opposite parties cheated the complainant in any manner s alleged. The allegations are false and baseless.

It is further pleaded that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the cancellation of policy is illegal and the complainant is entitled to continue with the policy only in that case the complainant may be directed to give undertaking that he has not acquired any illness during the intervening period between the policy cancellation and reinstatement. After denying all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence photocopy of insurance policy containing pages 1 to 18 (Ex.C-1) photocopy of payment acknowledgment ( Ex.C-2 & C-3), photo copy of letters (Ex.C-4 to C-7), photo copy of Frequent asked questions (Ex.C-8), affidavit of Harpal Singh dated 11-05-2018 ( Ex.C-9) and closed evidence.

To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence photocopy of Insurance Policy (Ex. OP-1/1), affidavit of Gaurav Sikka dated 30-07-2018 (Ex.OP-1/2), photocopy of authority letter ( Ex.OP-1/3) affidavit of Sunil Kumar Sharma dated 23-08-2018 (Ex.OP-1/4) photocopy of illustration of benefits (Ex.OP-1/5) photocopy of proposal form with annexures containing 12 pages (Ex.OP-1/6) photocopy of letters (Ex.OP-1/7 and OP1/8) photocopy of investigation report containing 25 pages (Ex.OP-1/9), photocopy of investigation report containing pages 1 to 5 (Ex.OP-1/10) and closed evidence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

These are undisputed facts between the parties that complainant purchased policy No. 16899959 from the opposite parties with Sum Assured of Rs. 15,00,000/-, policy terms 10 years, date of commencement 15-7-2014 upto 2024. Complainant deposited three premiums i.e Ist premium amounting to Rs. 15,019/- on 15-7-2014 vide document Ex. C-1, 2^nd premium of Rs. 15,238/- on 19-7-2015 vide Ex. C-2 and 3^rd premium of Rs. 15,372/- on 13-7-2016 vide Ex. C-3. The opposite parties cancelled the policy in question vide letter dated 20-6-2017 (Ex. C-4 ).

The plea of the opposite parties is that they deputed investigators to investigate the non-disclosure details if any, by the insured for obtaining insurance policy. The credentials of the assured were found to be under question. Therefore, the policy in question was cancelled under intimation to the complainant as per rules legally vide letter dated 20-06-2017 as the policy based on incorrect information is void from inception.

Ex. OP-1/10 is the Investigation Report on the basis of which, the opposite parties cancelled the policy of the complainant. The investigation assignment date mentioned is 12-4-2017. The policy commencement date is 15-7-2014 meaning thereby that near about after three years of issuance of policy, the opposite parties deputed Investigator to investigate the credentials of the life assured. Ex. OP-1/9 is the another Investigation report of Investigating agency namely 'Prefecture'.The investigation job was entrusted to this investigator on 8-8-2017 i.e. after four months of first investigation report. Both the Investigators have mentioned same address of life assured i.e. H. No. 24690, Hira Nagar, Near Bhatinda Chemical, Bathinda, Punjab.

As detailed above, the opposite parties deputed investigator after about three years of issuance of policy and after four months of first investigator deputed another investigator. Same address of life assured/complainant was given to both the investigators. First investigator opined that LA (Life Assured) address was not traceable and second Investigator concluded that he met LA at his said address and he provided his ID proofs to him. Investigator also opined in his report that LA is hale and hearty and not suffering from any major ailment. The logic/practice adopted by the opposite parties is not understandable. After three years of issuance of policy how can the Insurance Company can cancel the policy, all of sudden, by taking plea that address of LA is not traceable and thereafter, after four months how can same address becomes traceable. Even after submission of second Investigation report on 5-9-2017 wherein Investigating agency 'Prefecture' confirmed whereabouts of the LA/complainant and also confirmed that LA is hale and hearty, the opposite parties did not restore the policy in question of complainant.

The opposite parties have pleaded in their written reply that if this Commission comes to the conclusion that the cancellation of policy is illegal and the complainant is entitled to continue with the policy only in that case the complainant may be directed to give undertaking that he has not acquired any illness during the intervening period between the policy cancellation and reinstatement.

Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that not only the cancellation of policy is illegal rather there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting investigations one after another and that too after three years of issuance of policy and created flimsy ground to cancel the policy in question of the LA/complainant. The opposite parties failed to prove any misrepresentation made by complainant for obtaining the policy in question. The opposite parties cannot be permitted to frustrate the claim on technicalities and indulgence of cash rich Insurance Companies in luxury litigation is depreciable. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for sufferings which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties without any fault of his part in addition to relief regarding revival/refund of premium of policy in question.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 . The opposite parties are directed to refund the premium already paid in the Insurance Policy in question of the complainant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of respective deposit till refund only if complainant had not availed benefit during this period.

The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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

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

Announced :

07-12-2021

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

President

(Shivdev Singh)

Member

(Paramjeet Kaur)

Member