Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/125

Gurpreet Singh & ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank Of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.A.L Verma

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/125/2022
Date of Institution	:	29.08.2022
Date of Decision	:	11.08.2023

 

 

 

 

 

1. Gurpreet Singh son of Late Bhola Nath,
2. Harpreet Kaur d/o Bhola Nath,
3. Jaspreet Kaur daughter of Late Bhola Nath,
4. Jarnail Kaur wife of Late Bhola Nath,  All residents of Neholka Road, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                                                        ……Complainants

                                        Versus

 

1. Bank of Baroda, Branch, Beant Singh Aman Nagar, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.
2. India First Life Insurance Company, 12^th & 13^th Floor, North (C) Wing, Tower-4, Nesco-11 Park, Nesco Centre, Western Express Highway, Goregon (East), Mumbai-400 063, through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

 

Shri S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Ranvir Kaur, Member

Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Member

 

Present:-

For the complainants  : Shri Udey Verma, Advocate.

For OP No.1                 : Shri Sunil Kumar Pahuja, Advocate.

For OP No.2                 : Ms. Priya Sehgal, Advocate.

 

ORDER:

 

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on their part with the prayer for issuance of directions to them to pay Rs.20,00,000/-as insured amount on account of death of Bhola Nath son of Som Nath, resident of Neholka Road, Kurali, who had been got insured by OP No.1 with OP No.2 on account of financing of Car Swift Dezire bearing Registration No.PB-12-AG-4589 and to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, as damages on account of physical and mental harassment and financial loss caused to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 6.12.2021 till payment of the same.  Costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- were also claimed.    

2.     The case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 along with his father Shri Bhola Nath son of Som Nath purchased a Swift Dezire Maruti Car bearing Registration No.PB-12-AG-4589 and the same was got financed from OP No.1-Bank.  While financing the said car OP No.1, which had collaboration with OP No.2-Insurance Company also got insured the life of the father of complainant No.1 Late Bhola Nath and for that purpose OP No.1 deducted an amount of Rs.12,423/- from Account No.34510100008179 of said Bhola Nath.  OP No.1 kept the said life insurance policy of late Bhola Nath with itself only and mutilated copy of the said insurance cover note was supplied to the insured, which is not readable.  It is averred that during the insurance period said Bhola Nath died on 6.12.2021.  After the death of Bhola Singh the complainants are his surviving legal heirs being his son, daughters and wife and they are entitled to receive the insured amount from OP No.2-Insurance Company.  The complainants requested OPs Nos.1 and 2 for payment of Rs.20,00,000/- as insured amount but they had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and they finally refused to pay the same without assigning any reason.  The complainants have stepped into the shoes of late Bhola Nath and are consumers of the OPs.  Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs Nos.1 and 2, the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to them. 

3.      Upon notice, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate replies.  OP No.1 in its separate reply in the shape of affidavit of its Branch Manager, Shri Vikas Taneja has submitted that the insurance in question is a subject-matter of OP No.2 and claim of the complainant, if any, is also concerned with OP No.2.  Sales person of OP No.2 usually visits Branch Office of answering OP No.1 for the purpose of business.  The sale persons of OP No.2 met the father of complainant No.1-Late Shri Bhola Nath and explained him Life Insurance Plan, which he accepted.  On his request the answering OP No.1 deducted premium amount from the account of Late Shri Bhola Nath and paid to OP No.2.  It is OP No.2, which is liable to pay the insurance amount, if any, to the complainants.  Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer for dismissal of complaint qua it has been made.

4.     In its separate amended reply OP No.2-Insurance Company has submitted that OP No.2-Insurance Company never

 

        received any proposal form from the father of the complainant, late Shri Bhola Nath, hence, no insurance policy was issued in the name of the father of the complainant.  The premium amount of Rs.12,424/- was received by OP No.2 but when the proposal form was not received, the premium amount was refunded to the account of the father of the complainant.  Denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.     In support of their complaint, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 as Ex.CW1/A and documents i.e. copy of insurance policy as Ex.C/1, copy of Bank Account Statement as Ex.C/2, copy of Death Certificate of Bhola Nath as Ex-C/3, copy of Aadhaar Card of Bhola Nath as Ex-C/4, copy of Aadhaar Card of complainant No.1 as Ex-C/5 and copy of RC of the vehicle as Ex-C/6.

6.     On the other hand, OP No.1-Bank tendered in evidence affidavit of its Branch Manager Shri Vikas Taneja as Ex.OP-1/A, whereas OP No.2-Insurance Company tendered in evidence affidavit of its Assistant Vice President, Legal, Kamlesh Mishra as Ex.OP1/A and copy of mail dated 23.12.2022 as Ex.OP1.

7.     Heard.  The entire record has been perused.

8.     The case of the complainants is that complainant No.1-Gurpreet Singh along with his father Bhola Nath son of Som Nath purchased a Swift Dzire car bearing Registration No.PB-12-AG-4589 by getting the same financed from OP No.1-Bank.  A perusal of Registration Certificate of the said vehicle, Ex.C-6, reveals that owner’s name is mentioned as Bhola Singh son of Som Nath.  The life of the father of complainant No.1, Late Bhola Nath was got insured from OP No.2-Insurance Company by OP No.1-Bank in the sum assured of Rs.05,40,000/- as per Ex-C1 and an amount of Rs.12,423/- was deducted by it from the account No.34510100008179 of Bhola Nath on 18.3.2021, which is clear from bank statement Ex-C2.  During the insurance period Bhola Nath died on 6.12.2021, which is proved from his death certificate, Ex-C3.  After the death of Bhola Nath the complainants being his only legal heirs are entitled to receive the insurance amount from the OPs.

9.     On the other hand, the case of OP No.1-Bank is that it had only provided the loan to Bhola Nath for purchasing the above said car and the amount deducted from his account to the tune of Rs.12,423/- was deposited by it with OP No.2-Insurance Company.  It is OP No.2-Insurance Company, which is liable to pay the insurance claim. 

10. The case of OP No.2-Insurance Company is that it did not receive any signed proposal form and required documents from late Bhola Nath or from OP No.1.  Therefore, no policy was issued by OP No.2 and the premium amount of Rs.12,423/-, which was deducted from account No.34510100008179 of Late Bhola Nath was refunded by it on 28.9.2021, vide online mode bearing transaction reference No.BT21092841804739, which is also clear from statement of account, Ex.C/2, of Bhola Nath produced on record by the complainants themselves.
11.         That facts, relevant for the disposal of this Petition, are that on 18.03.2021, father of the complainant No. 1 Sh. Bhola Nath  applied for ‘India First Life Group Credit Life Plan Policy’       Ex-C1. The sum insured was Rs. 5,40,000/- and paid the  premium amount of Rs. 12,423/- on 18.03.2021. No Policy document was issued till 28.09.2021 the date on which premium amount refunded to the complainant.. The said Bhola Nath  died on 06.12.2021. The Insurance Co. denied the claim on ground that the complainant had not submitted the proposal form. No document placed on record regarding cause of death. Even the OP2 did not place any policy document  on record and the policy was not been given to the complainants even after they demanded it. According to Chapter 6 of I C 33 Life Insurance (New Syllabus) First Edition 2007 as under:-

“12.    The underwriter’s decision on the proposal may be to   accept at OR or otherwise. If it is accepted at OR, the policy   can be commenced immediately, provided the full premium had been paid along with the proposal. The FPR will be  issued. If the acceptance is not at OR, the proposer has to agree to the modified terms and pay the balance premium if any, before the First Premium Receipt (FPR) can be issued. The IRDA regulations require that the decision on the proposal should be made by the insurer within 15 days.”

The insurance policy should have been issued or rejected by

the insurance company as per IRDA guidelines within 15 days of depositing the premium mentioned above. Why the insurance company i.e. OP2 kept the amount of Rs 12423/- from 18.03.2021 to 28.09.2021?; why did OP2 not ask the complainant to complete the proposal form or for any other formality if as desired ?. No plausible explanation or justification to this furnished by the OP2. Therefore it is found that  OP2 was deficient and inefficient in performing its duty.   

12. The Act is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. In the instant case, the proposal was made and the premium paid on 18.03.2021. The insured expired on 06.12.2021. Paying the sum insured to the nominees / legal heirs of the deceased insured is still pending, One primary objective of taking insurance, that is, immediate pecuniary relief to the nominees / legal heirs of the insured, has already been defeated.
13. Consequently, the instant complaint  is accepted partly and the order is passed as under:-

1. The insurance company i,e. OP2 is directed to pay the insurance amount i.e. sum assured (Ex-C1) of               Rs. 5,40,000/- (Rs.5.40 lakh) to the complaint with effect from 06.12.2021 with 9% annual interest for the first 45 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, thereafter the interest will be 12% till  realisation. 

The amount will be distributed equally among the complainants.

2. The insurance company shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.
3. The OP2. is further directed to comply with the order within 45 days         from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
4. That the complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to paucity of staff.

Pronounced on:- 11-08-2023

 

    (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                                               (Ranvir Kaur)                    (S.K. Aggarwal)

                            Member                                                             Member                                        President