State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Deepak Rajbhandary vs Mrs. Metilda Stanley, Sr. Vice ... on 17 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/419/2015 1. Mr. Deepak Rajbhandary S/o, Lt. Bharat Rajbhandary, Laxmi Bhawan, 1 No. S.N. Bose Road, Shivmandir, Pin - 734 011, West Bengal. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Mrs. Metilda Stanley, Sr. Vice President Operations, HDFC Sl Corporate Office. Trade Star, 2nd Floor, A Wing, Junction of Kondivita and M.V. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 059. 2. The Branch Manager, HDFC, Sl, Siliguri Branch. Saharan House, Ist Floor, Amar Garage Sevoke Road, Siliguri - 734 001. 3. The Associates Circle Head and Operations Manager, HDFC SL, Santiniketan Branch. Basundhara, 2nd Floor, Santiniketan Road, Pin - 731 204, Bolpur, Dist - Birbhum, West Bengal. ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee Ms. Mousumi Chakraborty, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee., Advocate Dated : 17 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This is a complaint filed by one Sri Deepak Rajbhandary over non-acceptance and/or non-payment of his pre-mature claim in respect of one insurance policy by the OPs.
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that he took a policy, namely, "HDFC Unit Linked Wealth Multiplier" bearing No. 013109203. As per terms, he was required to pay annual premium for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- over a period of 3 years and the policy term was 10 years. The Complainant did not default making payment of annual premiums. As he decided to surrender the said policy, he sent relevant documents to the Bolepur office of the OPs through his friend and attorney, Mr. Chinmay Chowdhury on 07-08-2015. However, allegedly the said office refused to accept the said papers from Mr. Chowdhury and refused to issue surrender value statement through him. So, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs through email on 17-08-2015. In reply, the OPs sent a vague reply vide return e-mail dated 18-08-2015. Thereafter, the Complainant again sent the policy documents to the OPs through said Mr. Chowdhury on 21-08-2015. However, this time too he met the same fate. The Complainant, therefore, issued one demand notice through his Ld. Advocate on 25-08-2015 seeking refund of the surrender value as on 21-08-2015, but this too did not yield any positive result. Since repeated complaints with the OPs went in vain, the Complainant filed the complaint.
Per contra case of the OPs is that since surrender of policy has financial impact on the investment of the policyholder and more so, in order to prevent fraud, surrender is allowed only if a policyholder personally presents the policy documents to the office of the OPs. In exceptional cases like medical exigency, surrender is allowed through constituted attorney. Considering the request of the Complainant, he was allowed to surrender the policy through an authorized person holding valid authorization. As Mr. Chowdhury did not produce any Power of Attorney, the OPs did not process Complainant's claim.
Moot point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief.
Decision with reasons Heard the Ld. Advocates and perused the material on record.
The OPs refused to accept the policy documents of the Complainant from Mr. Chinmay Chowdhury on the ground that the Complainant did not issue any Power of Attorney in favour of said Mr. Chowdhury.
It appears from the copy of e-mail dated 18-08-2015 of the OPs to the Complainant that they confirmed the fact that surrender request could be submitted by an authorized person along with an authorization letter in favour of the person who would submit relevant papers. Significantly, nowhere in the said email, there was any mention of the necessity of submission of Power of Attorney in favour of the person for the purpose of submission of surrender request.
The terms and conditions of the concerned policy do not envisage any such requirement either. It is clear, therefore, that the OPs suo mottu created such condition.
Now, let us consider whether for the purpose of submission of surrender request, execution of Power of Attorney was imperative.
Although the OPs cited so-called financial impact and possibility of fraud to justify their insistence for discharge of Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Chinmay Chowdhury, on a thoughtful consideration of the matter, it seems, so much rigidity on the part of the OPs was totally uncalled for.
Since the claim would anyway been settled subject to tallying of signature of the Complainant in the Surrender Processing Form vis-à-vis Complainant's signature on the proposal form kept in the office record of the OPs and surrender proceeds would have been directly remitted to the specified bank account of the beneficiary, possibility of fraud was quite feeble. Further, in case of slightest doubt in their mind, the OPs could directly get in touch with the Complainant over phone in order to satisfy themselves as to the fact whether or not the Complainant indeed intended to surrender the policy.
It appears from the documents on record that by writing a letter, the Complainant in crystal clear terms expressed his desire to surrender the policy through his authorized person, Mr. Chinmay Chowdhury and besides mentioning the driving licence and passport numbers of Mr. Chowdhury, he duly authenticated the specimen signature of Mr. Chowdhury.
The OPs although refused to accept such authorization letter, they have not clarified from which angle the same fell short of any standard authorization letter.
Further, there can hardly be any dispute as to the fact that, asking for Power of Attorney from an authorized person for the sheer purpose of submission of policy documents is akin to taking a hammer to spread a plaster.
Clearly, as the value at stake was quite substantial, the OPs intended to delay the settlement process by hook or by crook. It is indeed unfortunate that, thanks to the stubborn refusal of the OPs to accept the policy documents from the Complainant's authorized representative, the Complainant has been forced to take legal recourse. This is the least a bona fide policyholder expects from a service provider in order to withdraw his hard-earned money.
There is no denying the fact that one opts for pre-mature withdrawal of money out of extreme necessity. However, visibly necessity of a policyholder counts nothing to the OPs. The conduct of the OPs clearly smacks of gross deficiency in service. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to allow this complaint.
Hence, O R D E R E D that the complaint stands allowed on contest against the OPs with cost for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The OPs shall give effect to the surrender request of the Complainant as per applicable NAV as on 21-08-2015 together with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till full and final payment is made. In case of non-compliance of this order within 45 days from this day, Complainant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER