Date of filing:- 26/11/2018.
Date of Order:-11/12/2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2018.
Prakash Sarangi, S/o-Dadhigana Sarangi, aged about-44(forty four) years, Occupation-Service, R/o-Gangadhar Nagar, Govindpali Road, Bargarh, P.o./P.s/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-.
- The Customer care Officer, Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd , G .Corp Tech Park , 6th Floor, Kasar Wadavali, Ghodbundar Road, Thane -400601.
- The Customer Care Manager, Adtiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd, One Indiabulla Centre, Tower-1, 16th Floor, Jupitor Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstono Road, Mumbai-400031.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri S.K.Panda, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/12/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
In pursuance to the provision U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complainant has preferred to file the case with an allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service against the Opposite Parties as hereunder.
The petitioner is a policy holder of the Opposite Parties vide Policy No-006222695 at Bargarh Branch for his daughter under BSLI Vision plan and had been paying the requisite premium regularly in a half yearly mode and in this way has paid five premium up to 2015 march since 2013, but later on due to some health problem of his mother he could not continue and also his allegation is that during the said period of his default the Opposite Parties did not remind him for the same which he ought to have remind him as a prudent service provider also the Opposite Parties have not intimated him regarding the grace period of revival of the same policy which was there on Dt.06.03.2018.
The further case of the Complainant is that while after knowing the termination of his said policy tried to contact the Opposite Parties for the revival of his policy and was ready to pay the premium with penalty fine, they did not pay any heed to it, which is an act of deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice in his view as he has already paid a considerable amount with a pious purpose for his daughter for which he suffered a lot both financially and mentally too thus seeing no other alter native served Pleader Notice but to no result for which has preferred to file the present case claiming the date of his knowledge of the termination of his policy Dt.20.03.2018 and on Dt.17.09.2018 when he sent a Pleader Notice as the date of cause of action, praying for a direction from the honorable Forum to the Opposite Parties to receive the premium with penalty for the revival of the said policy and also has prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.60,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only against the mental and financial loss undergone by him.
The Complainant has relied on some following documents in support of his pleading;-
- The termination letter of the policy,
- The copy of the pleader Notice .
Perused the complaint, the documents filed in it’s support and on hearing the counsel for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and in response both of them appeared through their lawyer and also have filed their joint version.
The version of the Opposite Parties are of total denial of their responsibility in the event of the termination of the Policy in question and have denied to have been deficient in any manner in rendering service to the Complainant rather have shifted the total responsibilities on the shoulder of the Complainant and have filed a voluminous version with a numbers of annexture stating therein the various proposition of law relating to the definition of the deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice and also have quoted some guide lines of some higher legal authorities, so the total gist of the version is a total denial of the allegation made by the Complainant and have claimed to dismiss the case as frivolous and vexatious claim U/s 26 of the Act 1986.
Having gone through the pleadings of the Parties the followings issues have come up before us to adjudicate the case:-
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim made by him.
While dealing with the Issues No.1(one), the materials available in the record was vividly examined by us and it came to our Notice that the Policy in question is an admitted fact and also it has been admitted that the Complainant has paid the premium as has mentioned in the complaint for five times also it reveals from the record with the admission of the Complainant that he has defaulted in paying the subsequent premium, but it is also found from the record that he was not intentional in non-paying the premium rather he was prevented from sufficient cause in paying the same and subsequently thereafter he has intended to pay the same that too with penalty for his delay which it’selfs speaks of his credibility on the other hand the Opposite Parties have denied to revive the same on the ground that he has defaulted in the payments beyond the limitation as per the terms and condition as envisaged in the policy bond .
In this connection the facts and the law of insurance and the intention of the Opposite Parties Company is taken in to consideration, that the basic intention of such organization is for the purpose of the benefit of their customer and also the public at large, and when the Complainant is interested in reviving the policy even with penalty along with the defaulted amount of premium and furthermore in view of the intention of the legislature in enacting the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is for the protection of the Consumer and is a benevolent provision of law, the same should be strictly followed with, further more it is based on the natural justice ,in view of the observation made by the Honourable Forum, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service and should have given weitage to the intention of the Complainant and should have revived the policy by receiving the requisite amount of premium with penalty incurred thereto, which they have not acted upon which amounts to deficiencies of service coupled with unfair trade practice having being jointly liable by both the Opposite Parties in our consensus view. Hence our answer is assertive in favor of the Complainant .
Secondly with regard to the claim of the Complainant, it is observed from the materials available before us in the record that even though he has defaulted in paying the premium in time but for some obvious reason hence is entitled to his claim but to a limited extend hence our answer is an assertive one, hence our order follows.
O R D E R.
Hence the Opposite Parties are having been jointly liable are directed to receive the defaulted amount of premium with the prevelant rate of penal interest from the Complainant and revive the said policy in question within thirty days of receipt of the order and the Complainant is also directed to pay the rest of the defaulted amount of premium within three months in three installments with the prescribed rate of penalty on the amount, from the date of receipt of this order or else the law will take it’s on course of action.
Accordingly the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.11.12.2019 having been pronounced in the open Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh.
