DEVINDER KUMAR Vs. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCCOMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.391 of 2013, filed by the complainants (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under: -

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant being allured, by the false assurance of the Agent of the Opposite Parties, to get good returns, invested a sum of Rs.3 lacs, vide receipt dated 26.08.2008 (Annexure C -1), in Life Assurance Unit Linked Pension Plus Policy. Policy No.12118339 dated 09.09.2008, alongwith some documents, was received by the complainant, against the said deposit. However, on receipt of the unit statement (Annexure C -3), value of the deposit was shown to be reduced to Rs.1,81,999.53P. It was stated that, thereafter, on asking of the Opposite Parties, the complainant deposited further premiums of Rs.10,000/ - each, on 01.09.2009 and 08.09.2010, vide Annexures C -6 and C -7 respectively. As such, the complainant, in all, deposited a sum of Rs.3.20 lacs, with the Opposite Parties.

(3.) THEREAFTER , the complainant did not receive any notice or reminder, for depositing the premium amount. It was further stated that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the Opposite Parties, sent him a cheque dated 16.09.2011, in the sum of Rs.1,76,187.91Ps., showing the Policy as paid -up. It was further stated that no details of the units redeemed and NAV at the time of redemption were furnished. It was further stated that even no reasons, for such redemption were given to the complainant. It was further stated that the said cheque had not been encashed by the complainant. Legal notice dated 26.12.2011, was also served upon the Opposite Parties, to redress the grievance of the complainant, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties of not refunding the entire amount, deposited by the complainant, as premiums, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay the balance amount, and compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment.