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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more