State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., vs 1. Palaparthy Venkata Krishna on 2 August, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 417 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.58/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-I, HYDERABAD
Between:
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Now Rep. by regional Manager, (earlier Rep. by M.D)
11th floor, Lodha Excelus, Appollo Mills Compounds,
N M Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai-400 011.
...........Appellant/ Opposite Party
And:
Mr.Palaparthy Venkata Krishna,
S/o Late Satyanarayana,
Occ: Retd. Central Government Employee,
R/o 6-3-856/5, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad-500 016.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party: Sri T P Ravi Sankar
Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant : Sri Katta Laxmi
Prasad
QUORUM :
HON'BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT
&
HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - (JUDICIAL)
FRIDAY, THE 02nd DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
**********
Order : (PER HON'BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER - JUDICIAL)
1.The appeal is filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-I, Hyderabad, dated 02.01.2020 in CC 58/2017, where under the opposite party was directed to refund Rs.1,60,000/- under four polices and Rs.80,000/- deducted from the account of complainant besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- within 45 days failing which the awarded amounts carry's interest at 18% P.A. from the date of order till repayment.
22. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is having four grand-children and he is a retired employee aged 80 years; that on the inducement of agents of the opposite party purchased 04 individual HDFC Sanchay Life Insurance policies for a fixed single payment of premium of Rs.40,000/- on different dates in the month of November 2015, as the subscriber and his four grandchildren as the beneficiaries; that the opposite party has sent letters claiming annual subscription for the year 2016-2017 and without the instructions of the complainant, high handedly had taken Rs.80,000/- from his account for two polices; that having come to know about the mis- representation, fraud and malpractice played by the opposite party in issuing the policies for annual payment of premiums, instead of a single payment premium demanded for the refund of total amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, but it was not paid; hence, the complaint.
3. The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party are that the Complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that both parties to the complaint are bound by the terms, conditions and exclusions of the written contract entered by them; that basing on the proposals made by complainant, the policies were issued, as such the complainant cannot be permitted to speak contrary to the terms and conditions; that as per the proposal itself the premiums are to be paid for 5 years with annual payment of Rs.40,000/- for each policy; that as per the terms of the policy there is a free look period for not accepting the terms and option is available to return the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy; that in the case on hand the complainant failed to do so; that the complainant in order to get over further payment of premiums for four more years filed the complaint to get a wrongful gain; that the complainant cannot be permitted to plead that he was cheated, or mis-represented by the people of opposite party in obtaining the polices; that there is no cause of action to the complaint. With this requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs for vexatious claim.
34. Before the Commission below, the complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A4. One Mr. R.Nagendra, Associate Legal Manager working in the opposite party Company, filed evidence affidavit as Rw1 but no document is marked for the opposite party though available on record. Written arguments were filed for the complainant.
5. The Commission below settled the following points for discussion viz..:
A. A) Whether there is negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite party?
B)Whether the complainant is entitled for claim/ compensation made in the complaint?
C) To what relief?
6. Having heard, the Commission below basing on the material available on record passed the order as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party with the following grounds:
The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, facts and probabilities of the case and is liable to be set aside. The Commission below failed to go through the documents filed by the opposite party and also wrong in concluding; that the opposite party adopted unfair trade practice. The commission below failed to appreciate the admissions of the complainant that he had taken 04 single premium policies in the name of his grand-children. The Commission below by its own surmises and conjectures came to the conclusion that the complainant was induced to obtain the policies by the opposite party.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint.4
7. Now the points for determination are :
(1) Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party?
(2) Whether the impugned order in sustainable under law? (3) To what relief?
8. Heard the arguments of respondent counsel only and despite granting 15 days' time to file written arguments even after the matter was reserved for orders, the appellant failed to avail the opportunity.
9. POINTS 1 to 3: For the reasons, better known to the opposite party though they have filed proposal forums for all the 04 policies obtained by Pw1, in the name of his grand-children not marked them. The unmarked documents cannot be looked into. The Complaint was filed in the year 2017, mentioning age of Pw1 at 80 years. It means by the date of policy he was aged 77 or 78 years.
10. The Commission below in its order by answering point No.1 categorically drawn a table showing the eligibility criteria to apply or purchase HDFC Sanchay Life Insurance policy. As per the same, eligible criteria for the maximum age of the policy holder is only 60 years. As on the date of policies under Ex.A1 to A4, Pw1 was aged 77 or 78 years. So, the minimum eligibility criteria is not met with. For the said reason, the Commission below invoked section 18 of the contract Act after discussions and found that the policies in question shall be declared as void-ab-initio, as per the clause 2, of the general terms and conditions of the policies and in such case the premium paid shall be refunded without interest after deducting all applicable charges.
11. The evidence affidavit of Pw1 and Rw1 is nothing but oath against oath. As per Pw1, he was induced to purchase the policies for a single payment premium of Rs.40,000/- per policy. Whereas, it is the contention of Opposite Party that all the 04 5 policies were issued to Pw1, as per the proposal forms submitted by him, which shows annual premium of Rs.40,000/- shall be paid under each policy for a period of five years. Taking into consideration the age of Pw1and also his version put forth in the evidence affidavit, one can understand that there is absence of consensus ad-idem. It is more so, when Pw1 already crossed the maximum age of 60 years to obtain the HDFC Sanchay Life Insurance Policy.
12. Pw1failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the policy to exercise the option of either to reject or return the policies within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policies. For the first time after the receipt of notice for renewal payment of premiums for the year 2016-2017, that too after deduction of Rs.80,000/- from his account raised the dispute. It shows Pw1, not acted like a prudent man. For these reasons, we are of the view that no compensation can be awarded to the complainant. Despite the order of Commission below regarding prohibition of obtaining the policy in question by a person beyond 60 years, no ground is raised in the appeal and nothing is clarified on this aspect. So, the points are answered accordingly
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed without costs by modifying the order dated 02.01.2020 inC.C.No.58/2017 by DCDRC-I Hyderabad with a direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.2,40,000/- with 6% interest from date of payment till the time as fixed in this order i.e., within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which shall pay interest at 8% per annum thereon from 31st day till realization. The Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the statutory deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- made by the Opposite Party while preferring the appeal along with accrued interest after the lapse of revision time.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER-JUDICIAL
*KSK