First Appeal No. 4 of 2014. Case: Devinder Kumar Vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 4 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Vinod Verma, Advocate and For Respondents: None
JudgesSham Sunder, J. (President) and Dev Raj, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12
CitationI (2014) CPJ 241 (UT Chd.)
Judgement DateJanuary 10, 2014
CourtUnion Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Sham Sunder, J. (President)

  1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.8.2013, 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:

    In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is proved or established against the OPs. However, since the complainant has not got the cheque of Rs. 1,76,187.91 encashed, which was sent by the OPs (Ann. R-7) nor it has been disputed by the OPs, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to issue fresh cheque of the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,76,187.91 in favour of the complainant and send it to him forthwith. We order accordingly. There is no order as to compensation and costs.

    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 26.8.2008 (Annexure C-1), in Life Assurance - Unit Linked Pension Plus Policy. Policy No. 12118339 dated 9.9.2008, along with 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. 1,81,999.53. It was stated that, thereafter, on asking of the opposite parties, the complainant deposited further premiums of Rs. 10,000 each, on 1.9.2009 and 8.9.2010, 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.

  2. 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 16.9.2011, in the sum of Rs. 1,76,187.91 Ps., 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT