E.M. BABU Vs. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has sought for the return of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/ -with interest at 18% from 19.3.08 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 10,000/ -towards cost.

(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that he is an NRI and working as Managing Director Euro -Emirates LIC at Dubai that he used visit his home town at Kothamangalam every month. On 17.3.08 one Mr. Reghu/3rd opposite party claimed to be the agent of the opposite party/Insurance Company met the complainant at his residence and canvassed the policy of HDFC standard life insurance. He was also told that the policy will be dispatched within 15 days of the receipt of the proposal and the complainant will get 15 days time from the date of receipt of the policy to return the policy if he is not satisfied with the terms. Hence he decided to subscribe to two HDFC unit linked Pension Plus Scheme Policies. As requested by the 3rd opposite party the copies of the passport and visiting cared of the complainant was handed over and affixed his signatures in the blank proposal forms and he assured that he will fill up the details in the proposal form. He has also stated that the additional form is also necessary as the complainant is an NRI. The complainant handed over two cheques of Rs. 25,00,000/ - each to the agent on 17.3.08 the cheques were encashed on 23.3.08. The proof details of income was also furnished. Thereafter he did not receive the policy and made several telephone calls in the first week of the April onwards and it was informed that he will receive the policy shortly. Thereafter he sent an Email to Streekumar, Business Development Manager/2nd opposite party dated 3rd May 2008 informing that he has not received the policy. On 6th May 2008 the complainant received the policy at his home address and he was stunned to observe the following facts: a) A strangers address is shown as the home address. The above address is not stated in the passport or in the visiting card given at the time of making the proposal; b) The documents were set to an address which, is unknown to the complainant; c) the address disclosed at the time of making of the proposal was that stated in the passport; d) The complainant was denied access to the documents till May 6th 2008. In the reply Email sent by Sreekumar on 5th May 2008 it was informed that 10% service charges was already deducted from the total investment which was not informed to the complainant at any point of time. The above act itself constituted unfair trade practice. All the above facts were conveyed to Mr. Harsha Gupta, Private Banking Group and Mr. Farid Ahamed, the Relationship Manager of the HDFC Standard Life Insurance and also sought for the refund of the money invested. The said request was made within 15 days of receipt of policy. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties, in order to cover their negligence has introduced a stranger into the transaction by name Miss Miya Alex. In the e -mail dated 5.5.08 it is stated that the policy documents were sent to temporary address of Pulinkunnathil House, Thumpamon, P.O., Pandalam and the same was received by Miss Miya Alex on 13th April 2008. It was further mentioned that the particular business lead was generated by Miss Miya Alex, the niece of the complainant and that she requested to send the documents to the temporary address because of the complainant was out of station. It is further stated the business lead was generated by Miss Miya Alex, an Air Hostess residing at Pandalam, and the same was logged in the name of Mr. Reghu one of their licensed consultants because Miss Miya Alex do not have IRDA license for the consultancy. It is contended that the above facts mentioned in the e -mail is absolutely false. The complainant is not having any niece by name Miss Miya Alex. The said Miss Miya Alex is a total stranger to the complainant. There is collusion between the above Miss Miya Alex and Mr. Reghu, the agent/3rd opposite party. The e -mail is silent regarding the commission paid. The above collusion is evident by introduction of the address that is Pulinilkunnathil House, Thumpamon. P.O. Pandalam. The 3rd opposite party has deliberately incorporated a strangers address stating that she is the complainants relation. The passport copy and the visiting card handed over contained the home address of the complainant at Ernakulam and the official address of the complainant at Dubai. In the proposal form there is a specific column to incorporate the home address and a tick mark in the proposal form is made against the home address. Incorporating a strangers address in the home address column constituted unfair trade practice. The name of home address of the wife who is the nominee is correctly incorporated. The home address of the complainant and his wife are the same.

(3.) THE opposite parties have filed joint version totally denying the allegation. It is stated that the complainant is working in Dubai and is educated. The case that the complainant signed the blank proposal from is false. The proposal form was filled up and handed over the opposite parties by the complainant and the complainant has affixed his signature agreeing to the terms of the proposal. The address to which the complainant wished to receive documents and other communications has been stated in the proposal from by the complainant himself and the policy was dispatched by the opposite parties to the address in which the complainant wanted to receive the documents. The permanent address provided by the complainant in the proposal from is different from the address to which the complainant wanted to receive the documents as stated in the proposal. The complainant had agreed to the payment of all charges as stipulated from time to time and deduction of the charges was made from the premium as provided in the policy. The complainant had the option of returning the policy within 15days of receipt of policy. The policy was dispatched and received in the address to which the complainant had stated in the proposal from and the option of returning the policy was not exercised by the complainant within 15 days. The address in the proposal from was given by the complainant. The allegation of collusion between Miss Miya Alex and Reghu is denied. In the home address shown by the complainant in the proposal form is Pulinilkunnathil house, Thumbamon. P.O., Pandalam and the same address is shown as the address to which documents and correspondence are to be sent to the complainant by the opposite parties. The policy was also delivered in the same address. The allegation of unfair trade practice is denied.