Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
Ravishankar, Presiding Member and Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, Member
Sumalatha Amarnath – Complainant
versus
HDFC Life and Anr. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.388 of 2017
Decided on 31.5.2024
For the Complainant:M/s Just Law, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Sri J.M. Patil, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Amount paid – No explanation given with respect to the amount paid and what happened next not known. These aspects go to establish that the Opposite Party rendered deficiency in service.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47 – Services – Insurance – Refund of Amount – It is an admitted fact that after payment of Rs.40,00,000, the Opposite Party had issued a policy which is HDFC Life Guarantee Pension Policy. The complainant in her affidavit has sworn that she never invested such a huge amount towards the pension policy and even on perusal of the policy terms and conditions, she was not eligible for such a pension scheme – In spite of that the Opposite Parties have not refunded the amount even after receipt of reminders and legal notice issued for refund the amount, the Opposite Parties have not refunded the amount after deduction of certain charges under the head surrender of the policy, but, kept quiet without providing a fair chance for refund of the amount. This act of the Opposite Parties definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Further, no explanation given with respect to the amount paid and what happened next
not known. These aspects go to establish that the Opposite Party rendered deficiency in service – The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization – Complaint allowed. [Paras 6 to 18].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Ravishankar, Judicial Member—This is a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in not returning the amount of Rs.40 lakhs with interest after cancellation of the policy, hence, prayed for refund of the said amount along with compensation and costs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that she is an highly acclaimed Indian film actress who ordinarily a resident of Bengaluru. The complainant is regular and genuine customer of Opposite Party for the last 8 to 9 years. Such being the case, one Ms. Vishalakshi Bhat who posed as an Employee of the Opposite Party canvassed for investment to the tune of Rs.40 lakhs and assured to pay interest at 9% on the said investment. Believing the reputation of the Opposite Party and canvas made by the said agent/employee Ms. Vishalakshi Bhat, the complainant decided to make a deposit. Accordingly, on 15.05.2015 she paid Rs.40,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing no.000084 dt.15.05.2015 in favour of Opposite Party for which theops have issued a receipt regarding deposit having made by the complainant.
3. During the course of discussion, the Opposite Party had clearly informed to the complainant that she is going to receive Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at 9% by November 2016. Further, the complainant was under impression that along with deposit at the end of the term she would atleast get the amount of Rs.43,60,000/- from the deposit amount. Anyhow subsequently the complainant received a telephone call from the Opposite Party employee one Mr. Srinivasan Yuvaraj who enquire whether the complainant was aware about the terms and conditions regarding the insurance policy issued in her name vide No.17638500. The complainant informed through telephone that she had made a deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- as an investment as per the advise made by one Ms. Vishalakshi Bhat and further informed to Opposite Party that she had no knowledge about the terms and conditions of her deposit and also stated that she had deposited the said amount as per the advise and good faith on the Opposite Party company.
4. The complainant further alleged that she received another telephone call from one Mr. Prashanth who informed to the complainant that Ms. Vishalakshi Bhat an employee of the Opposite Party was involved in fraud and had misused customers fund and caution was given, she shocked and surprised. Then she visited the office of the Opposite Party at Bangalore where she noted that said Ms. Vishalakshi Bhat mislead this complainant and issued a policy by receiving Rs.40,00,000/-. At the time of receiving the amount, Ms.Vishalakshi Bhat had stated that the amount is towards investment, but, later on the said amount was paid towards pension policy. After knowing all these, she perused the policy wherein it clearly goes to show that the financial condition would clearly show that she is ineligible for such a plan and definitely she was not in a position to commit to pay such huge amount every year. This is a clear misleading made by the employee of the Opposite Party who had misrepresented and received an amount of Rs.40 lakhs. Thereafter knowing all these, the complainant wrote a letter dt. 18.11.2015 requesting for refund of the amount along with interest at the rate of 9% on the said amount for which the Opposite Party had issued a reply letter dt.08.12.2015 through Mr.Sanjay Idnani, Customer Relations and stated that the resolvation will be provided within 14 days. Believing on the said letter, the complainant waited, but, even after lapse of 14 days, there was no response from the Opposite Party regarding refund of the amount for which she wrote another reminder letter dt.30.01.2016 requested for refund of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest at 9% from 15.05.2015, but, inspite of receiving of the said reminder, the Opposite Party has replied through their letter dt.04.03.2016 untenably.
5. However, there was no a
