BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 164 of 2010
Date of Institution : 27.5.2010
Date of Decision : 8.08.2016
Sachin Wadhwa son of Shri Tara Chand Wadhwa, r/o H.No.125, B-Block, Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 213/14 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through Regional Manager.
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd., DSS 154 HUDA Complex near Town Park, Sirsa (Haryana) through Branch Manager.
- Manatger, HDFC Bank Credit Card Division, P.O.Box No.8654 Thiruvanmiyur PO, Chennai-600041.
- Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA. ……………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SIGH PANGHAL……..MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1&2.
Sh.M.K.Singla, Advocate for opposite parties no.3&4.
ORDER
In brief, the complainant on 13.3.2009, purchased “New Unit Gain
Easy Pension Plus RP” policy no. 0122475121, from opposite parties, after completing all the necessary requirements. The complainant at that time, paid premium of Rs.10,000/- in favour of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and then ops no.1 and 2 allotted the proposal form bearing no.21945839 and identification no.116L031V02 and on renewal page, every due date has been specifically mentioned i.e. 10 date of every month and year with a grace period of one month. Ops no.1 and 2 asked the complainant to make the renewal premium payment by credit card in HDFC Bank Ltd. and he was having a credit card no.5289456001141881 issued by opposite parties no.3&4. Thereafter, on 31.3.2010, the complainant deposited the renewal instalments with the Ops no.3 and 4 and in this regard, bill showing the payment due date on 2.5.2010 was issued in his favour. The bill shows that on 31.3.2010 an amount of Rs.10,000/- has been debited from the account of complainant in favour of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company. But, after a week, an official of Ops no.1&2 visited the premises of complainant and inquired about non-receiving of renewal premium payment. The complainant then immediately contacted opposite party no. 4 and requested him to verify the actual status, but in a casual manner it was replied that a mail in the shape of complaint has been sent to higher authorities i.e. to opposite party no.3 and thereafter, the Ops no.3 and 4 are repeatedly giving the reply that they have deposited the premium amount in the account of Ops no.1&2. The complainant again contacted Op no.2 for verifying the actual position and then, a message through e.mail was received from the opposite parties no.1&2 to the effect that “U had tried to pay your renewal online since the transaction could not completed, so we have not received this payment”. Second time, it was replied that “As your are valuable customer to us; we have initiated the process with the Bank reverse the amount at the earliest and same will be reflected in to your credit Card within 5 working days”. Hence, these contradictory statements made by opposite parties show the negligence, careless act, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in collusion with each other. His policy was closed by opposite parties no.1 and 2. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 put their appearance, but at the stage of filing written statement, they were proceeded exparte. However, vide order dt. 11.12.2012, they were asked to join the proceeding and address the arguments on the basis of complainant case. Therefore, no written statement was filed by opposite parties no.1 and 2.
3. Opposite parties no.3 and 4, in their reply, have denied issuance of credit card in the name of complainant. It is pleaded that this credit card was issued in the name of one Rajiv Kumar and thus, the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties. The card holder tried to pay the said amount of Rs.10,000/- but the transaction could not be completed as they have no tie up with opposite parties no.1 and 2 and as such the alleged amount was reversed to the card holder, which is shown in the monthly statement of accounts dt. 12.5.2010. Other averments have also been denied.
4. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1-e.mail, Ex.C2-insurance policy, Ex.C3-First premium receipt, Ex.C4-online renewal payment details, Ex.C5-detail of transaction, Ex.C6-credit card statement, Ex.C7-renewal page, Ex.C8 and Ex.C9-requests to verify the transaction, whereas, opposite parties have tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Sh.Anil Kumar Verma, Deputy Manager of HDFC bank, Ex.R2 to Ex.R7-credit card statements, Ex.R8-credit card Brochure –cum-application Form, Ex.R9-Declaration and Ex.R10-PAN.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 closed the above mentioned policy, without any fault of the complainant as he had deposited the second instalment through credit card. He further argued that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 be directed to renew his policy after accepting all the instalments due without any interest.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 argued that the complainant did not deposit the second instalment in time. If there was some problem in depositing the second instalment through credit card, he should have deposited the premium amount to the insurance company by some other mode. He further argued that Ops no.1 and 2 informed the complainant well in time in respect of non-deposit of second instalment as complainant admitted himself in his complaint that after a week period of transaction through credit card, an official of ops no.1 and 2 visited the premises of complainant and informed him regarding non-deposit of the instalment. It was the duty of the complainant to deposit the instalment in time and there is no deficiency on the part of the ops no.1 and 2 in closing his policy. Whereas, ld. counsel for ops no.3 and 4 argued that they never issued any credit card to the complainant and the alleged card was issued to one Sh.Rajiv Kumar and complainant is not their consumer. As such, present complaint against ops no.3 and 4 is not maintainable.
8. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the New Unit Gain Easy Pension Plus RP policy of the complainant is renewed by ops no.1 and 2, but subject to deposit of all the due instalments till the date of renewal, within a period of one month from today, failing which complainant will not be entitled for renewal of this policy. We order accordingly. No further order as to cost. Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
