Skip to main content

HDFC fined for harassing consumer

Central Mumbai's district consumer dispute redressal forum on Wednesday pulled up HDFC Standard Life Insurance for failing to hand over the invested amount of a Mumbai-based consumer, even after the amount had reached its maturity in July 2013. The forum thus directed the insurance firm to hand over the entire amount of Rs1,35,188 along with 9% interest rate on the amount from June 2013. The forum also directed the insurance firm to pay an amount of Rs10,000 towards the harassment caused to the complainant, along with an additional amount of Rs3,000 towards the complainant's litigation cost.

The complainant, Kalpana Sathe on July 1, 2003, had purchased a policy from the firm by paying a premium amount of Rs9,617. According to Sathe, the policy was Rs1 lakh and its maturity amount was Rs1,35,188. After the policy was matured in July 2013, she approached the firm, however instead of handing over the maturity amount, the firm insisted that she invest the amount in the firm's other scheme.

Sathe kept on requesting the firm to pay her back the matured amount, but the firm failed to abide vby its word. In 2014, she approached the forum and filed a complaint against the firm. The forum then asked the firm to file its reply, but the latter failed to do so.

Since the firm did not respond to the allegations leveled by the complainant, the forum on Wednesday passed its orders. In its orders, the forum stated, "If an investor doesn't wish to invest its amount in any scheme, then the company cannot force them to do so. The firm has unnecessarily harassed its consumer, who is a senior citizen, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a compensation for harassment."

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-hdfc-fined-for-harassing-consumer-2016016

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more