The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed HDFC Life to refund Rs 40 lakh along with interest and compensation to the actor and politician Sumalatha Ambareesh. This decision came in the wake of HDFC Life agents selling false promises. She will get the original investment of Rs 40 lakh with an interest rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from 2017.
Apart from this, she will get a compensation of Rs 10 lakh and Rs 25,000 as litigation expenses. The complaint was filed by Sumalatha against HDFC Life for not refunding the invested money with interest in 2017. It commission comprising members Ravishankar and Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi passed the order on May 31. The commission has held HDFC Life responsible for deficiency in service. This case started in 2015 when Sumalatha invested in the policy on the advice of an agent of HDFC Life.
According to the complaint filed by Sumalatha, she was promised by the company’s agent that she would get 9 per cent interest on fixed deposits for the investment of Rs 40 lakh. Later, it was revealed that her money was invested in a pension policy. Sumalatha Ambareesh issued a cheque dated May 15, 2015, for Rs 40 lakh with the belief that she would get around Rs 43 lakh by November 2016.
The commission stated that it has been proven from HDFC Life‘s affidavit that its agent Vishalakshi Bhat had misled the complainant and got her to invest Rs 40 lakh in the wrong policy. The commission said this shows Sumalatha had suffered financial losses due to misrepresentation of facts and misleading information by an agent. HDFC Life has also initiated criminal proceedings against Vishalakshi in this regard.
Before the verdict, Sumalatha informed the company twice about this and said that she would surrender her policy. She also demanded the return as promised but the company did not listen to her. After this, she went to the consumer court to file her complaint. When the commission sent a letter to the company, HDFC Life replied that the complainant was a well-educated person and she had signed the proposal form. According to the company, the complainant knew that the form she was signing was not an investment but an insurance policy. Hence, the company appealed to dismiss Sumalatha’s demand. However, the commission rejected their demand and gave a verdict in favour of Sumalatha Ambareesh.
Comments
0 comment