Delhi

New Delhi

CC/795/2010

RENU BATRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

19 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.795/2010                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

                Ms. Renu Batra,

                R/o A-147, 2^nd Floor, Derawal Nagar,

                G.T. Karnal Road,

                New Delhi-09.

  ….….Complainant

Vs.

 

         HDFC Standard Life  Insurance,

         H-69, Outer Circle,

        Connaught Circus,

        New Delhi-110001

        Through its Branch Manager

 

                                                                             ………Opposite Party

   NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased four policies bearing  No.10713503, 10713500, 10710589 and 10710587 with the OP and at the time of getting the above policies, complainant was told that she had to pay an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- against each policy and the same shall be securely invested in corporate debts’s. It is further stated that out of the four policy two were returned as cancelled by the OP on the request of the complainant after one year of the policy by admitting the fact that the same was issued by misrepresentation, whereas in remaining two policies the complainant requested for cancellation, instead of doing so the OP forged her signature on a purported letter within intention to make out the case that the complainant wants to reduce the premium.  It is alleged that the money belonging to the complainant was negligently invested by the OP leading to the downfall of investment of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 48,112.80/-, hence, she is entitled for refund of Rs. 1,40,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum with mental harassment and litigation cost.   

2.     OP had filed written statement opposing complaint of the complainant. It was stated that on the request of complainant two policies were cancelled. On the request of the complainant vide letter dated 11/09/2007, the premium amount was reduced by OP from Rs. 50,000/ to 10,000/-. On 28/09/2009 the complainant sent cancellation request to the OP. On her request OP company vide letter dated 20/11/2009 accept her cancelation request and alongwith this letter sent a cheque of Rs. 48,178.84/- each  to the complainant against the two policies in question as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant instead of encashing the cheque approach this Forum claiming the relief in question. It is further stated that the OP insurance company has already disbursed the payment to the complainant. Hence, not liable for any relief as prayed.  

3.     Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits. Parties also filed   written arguments.

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

5. Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues.  The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that the OP Insurance company forged her signature on a purported letter within intention to make out the case that the complainant wants to reduce the premium whereas it is stated on behalf of OP that after receiving the premium reduction request from the complainant the OP reduced the premium for the policy no. 10713500 and accordingly on 13/10/2018 the complainant paid reduced premium of Rs. 10,000/- in third year. It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that whether any request the reduction of premium is made or not by the complainant, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  Moreover, the complainant has alleged in the present complainant that money belonging to the complainant was negligently invested by the OP leading to the downfall of investment of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 48,112.80/-.   The issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

6.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

7.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

8.     In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 19/11/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                                MEMBER                                                         MEMBER