West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/143/2014

Sanjib Prodhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

and Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.143/2014

                                                       

Sanjib Pradhan……………….………Complainant

Versus

1)Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.;

2) Regional Manager, U.B.I.

                                                                              ………..Opp. Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

For the O.P.               : Mr. Santanu Das & Mr. Anup Kumar Misra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 11/08/2015

                               

ORDER

        Bibekananda Pramanik, President- Facts of the case, in brief, is that during the life time of Bimal Pradhan, the father of the complainant, he along with his son Sanjib Pradhan  jointly opened a savings A/C being no.9429 in the Branch Office of O.P. no.2-United Bank of India on 08/08/2008 for availing the United Suraksha Yojana (Double benefited offer).  As per circular, Bimal Pradhan and Sanjib Pradhan, the present complainant, the joint account holder paid insurance premium of Rs.13/- on 26/08/08 and the O.P. no.2 received premium in the savings account of  Bimal Pradhan and Sanjib Pradhan.  Unfortunately on 30/03/09, Bimal Pradhan died in a road traffic accident and the complainant, being a son and joint holder of that account, submitted claim against the said policy under the scheme with all relevant papers.  O.P. no.1 approved only a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- against the said policy and sent a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant but the O.P. no.1 intentionally withheld the accident benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant filed several representations before the Bank Authority and the Insurance Company for disbursement of balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as accidental benefit and after receiving the representations, filed by the complainant, higher authority of the Bank requested O.P. no.1, the

Contd…………..P/2

 

 -  ( 2 ) -

Insurance Company, to settle  the dispute and to disburse the accidental benefit of  Rs.1,00,000/- on 24/02/12.  The complainant again and again filed written representations before the O.P. no.1 for early disbursement of the balance accidental benefit but O.P. no.1 did not settle the same.  Hence, the complaint praying for direction upon the O.P. no.1 to effect payment for accidental benefit as per special provision and for other reliefs.

                 Both the O.Ps. have contested this case by filing two separate w/o.  In their w/o, Op no.1 has specifically stated that according to the agreement with the U.B.I., the sum assured is fixed to Rs.1,00,000/- in case of death of account-holder and accordingly,  they have paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on 25/07/09.  Said disbursement was a full and final discharge of all liabilities of the O.P-Insurance Company as per terms and conditions of the policy and any amount, if payable, is payable by the U.B.I.  It is also submitted that the O.P.-Insurance Company has a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.B.I. whereby it is fixed that against the single premium of Rs.13/-, the sum insured is Rs.1,00,000/- and the same has already been paid by the O.P.-Insurance Company.  O.P.-Insurance Company is unaware of any circular of double benefit offer and the same is not binding on O.P. no.1 as the MOU between the O.P. no.1 and O.P. no.2 clearly mentioned the restricted limited liability and the O.P. no.1 has not entered any other MOU with O.P. no.2 for double Insurance coverage.  Hence, the O.P. no.1 is not liable to pay any such double amount. Without admitting the liability of the complainant, it is further contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation.

                   O.P. no.2, the Regional Manager of U.B.I., in their w/o has specifically stated that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party inasmuch as the U.B.I., Khakurda Branch of U.B.I., with whom the complainant and his father opened the said account in connection with connection with the said policy has not been made a party in this case.  It is further stated that the present complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as the instant case has been filed long after the specified period of limitation of two years.  It is stated that the complainant got the cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- on 25/07/09 and if he had any further grievance for non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, he should have approached this Forum within 2 years from that date on 25/07/09.  It is also stated that the said Insurance Policy is run by U.B.I. along with it’s corporate partner Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company i.e. O.P. no.1 and it was settled between them that all the claims lodged against United Suraksha Yojana shall have to be settled by the O.P. No.1 as they are the service provider of the Insurance part of the said United Suraksha Yojana.  O.P. no.2 admits that it was the special campaigning initiative of the Bank that the customers who opened S/B account on and form 16/05/2008 to 30/09/2008 shall be paid the double benefit of the United Suraksha Yojana  during that specified period against payment of usual premium. The said facility was called “Operation ASHA” and the Bank’s corporate partner Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company shall have

Contd…………..P/3

 

-  ( 3 ) -

to pay double benefit i.e. Rs.2,00,000/-,  if any customer pays  usual premium within the aforesaid period and dies within one year from the date of premium payment. The O.P. no.1 received the Insurance Premium from the Bank Authority and therefore the complainant is entitled to get double benefit of Rs.2,00,000/- against the death of account holder Bimal Pradhan.  The claim for rest Rs.1,00,000/- was made within time but the O.P. no.1 did not fulfill the claim of the complainant till date. 

Points for decision

 

1)Is the present complaint maintainable in law?

2)Is the present case bad for defects of necessary party?

3)Is the complaint barred by limitation?

4)Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?                      

 

Decision with reasons

     All the above points are taken up together for consideration and for the sake of brevity.  It is not denied and disputed that the father of the complainant opened a Savings A/C no.9429 with his son Sanjib Pradhan, the complainant, in the Branch office of O.P. no.2. From the xerox copy of Bank passbook, it appears that the name of that Branch is Khakurda, U.B.I.   Said account was opened by the complainant and his father for obtaining United Suraksha Yojana (Double benefit offer) policy.  As per circular, the complainant and his father, being the joint account holder, paid insurance premium of Rs.13/- on 26/08/08.  So, according to the complainant, they obtained the said policy through Khakurda Branch of U.B.I., who was the corporate agent of O.P. no.1 Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd.  Although the Regional Manager of the U.B.I. has been made party as O.P. no.2 in this case but the Branch Manager of that Khakurda Branch of U.B.I., who is very much necessary party, has not been impleaded in this case.  In spite of the objection raised on this behalf of Op. no.2 in their written statement,  the complainant did not take any steps for adding the Branch Manager of Khakurda Branch of U.B.I. as party in this case. It is, therefore, held that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

            According to the complainant, his father Bimal Pradhan, who was joint account holder of that policy in question, died on 30/03/09 and being a son and joint holder, the complainant made a claim against the said policy with all relevant papers before the O.P. no.1 and the O.P. no.1 approved a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- against the said policy and sent a cheque of  Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant.  We find from the w/o filed by the O.P. no.1 that the complainant was paid Rs.1,00,000/- by them on 25/07/09 and the disbursal  of the said amount was made as a full and final discharge of all liabilities of the O.P.-Insurance company as per terms and conditions of the

Contd…………..P/4

 

-  ( 4 ) -

 

policy.  Complainant does not deny that the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to him by cheque on 25/07/09. But according to him, as per policy he is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- but he was only paid Rs.1,00,000/- by O.P. no.1.  In his complaint, the complainant has stated that O.P. no.1 intentionally

withheld the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  towards the balance of the accident benefit.  Thus we find that for such refusal, the cause of action arose from the date when the complainant received the cheque of  Rs.1,00,000/- on 25/07/09.  But the present complaint has been filed on 14/11/14 i.e. after 5 years from the date of cause of action.  It appears that no petition for condonation of such long delay in filing the present complaint was filed by the complainant at the time of filing of this case.  So, in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, the present case is barred by limitation and as such not maintainable.

            In view of our above findings, the complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for.

                                              Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                                                     that the complaint case no.143/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstance without cost.          

Dictated & Corrected by me

              Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

         President                                            Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur