DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.348 of 23-08-2013

Decided on 06-02-2014

Rakesh Gupta aged about 32 years S/o Raj Kumar R/o House No.13704A, St.No.4, Ganesh Nagar, Near MHR School, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gees Mall, Opposite Pizzano Restaurant, First Floor, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager.

2.Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 1, 15th and 16th Floor, Jupiter Mills, Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013, through its Managing Director.

3.Axis Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Hanish Bansal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one insurance policy bearing No.004323638 from the opposite party No.2 at Bathinda through the agent of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 against monthly premium of Rs.2499.99/- for the period of 10 years. The said agent informed the complainant that there is a facility that he can pay the monthly premium through his bank if he instructs his bank to debit the premium amount to Birla Sun Life Insurance Company per month as per Clause IX of the proposal form. The complainant was having saving bank account bearing No.242010100133456 with the opposite party No.3. The complainant instructed the opposite party No.3 to credit the amount of Rs.2500/- per month in the account of the opposite party No.2 towards the payment of premium of the abovesaid insurance policy. The opposite party No.3 started debiting the amount of Rs.2500/- per month from the account of the complainant to be debited in the account of the opposite party No.2, but the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is not crediting the same against the abovesaid insurance policy since September, 2011. When the complainant came to know about the non-crediting of the premium amount against the abovesaid policy, he deposited the amount of 8 installments together on dated 2.5.2012 with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide receipt No.31537015. The opposite party No.3 has been continuously debiting the amount of Rs.2500/- per month from the account of the complainant to credit the same in the account of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 towards the payment of the monthly insurance premium, but the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is not crediting the said amount since September, 2012. The complainant has sent e-mail to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to credit the premium amount against the insurance policy in question, but they refused to entertain his request and directed him to pay the premium amount directly. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of not crediting the premium amount against the insurance policy in question despite debiting the same from his account held with the opposite party No.3. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to credit the premium amount against the policy in question w.e.f September, 2012 duly debited by the opposite party No.3 and also to do so in future and to pay him compensation and litigation expenses.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has himself shown his willingness to purchase their life insurance plan and approached their adviser and got the entire information about all their insurance plans. Thereafter after understanding all the terms and conditions of all the plans, he opted to purchase 'Platinum Premier Plan Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy' of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and filled the proposal form bearing No.A40771170 on dated 10.8.2010 and opted to pay the premium of Rs.30,000/- per annum with sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/-; term of the plan 10 years and premium paying term 10 years and also opted the monthly premium of Rs.2500/- and ECS mode for the payment of monthly premium through bank and paid the initially premium of Rs.5000/- through cheque No.16091 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Before filling of the proposal form, there was a specific note in the abovesaid policy, the investment risk in the investment port folio is borne by the policyholder. After receiving the proposal form and going through the entire contents of the proposal form, the underwriters of the abovesaid policy had issued the insurance policy bearing No.304323638 and sent the policy documents alongwith its all terms and conditions to the complainant on the given address that has duly been received by him. There is free look period option under the abovesaid policy, in which if the policyholder is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he has the right to review the policy terms and conditions and cancel the policy within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, but the complainant has not availed that option, which means he was satisfied with his policy. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that whenever they received amount from the banker of the complainant, the same has been credited in the account of the complainant against the abovesaid policy. Due to the non-crediting of the premium amount by the banker of the complainant, the complainant deposited the premium against the policy in question. The premium through ECS mode showed by the bank of the complainant as 'Invalid Customer ID', due to this reason the premium has not been received by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 from the opposite party No.3, so his policy lapsed due to non-receiving of the premium. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 replied every query raised by the complainant and they never directed him to pay the premium amount directly.

3. Notice by hand/dasti was sent to the opposite party No.3 and the same was received on 20.9.2013 by it, but despite receiving the summons none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against it.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the 'Platinum Premier Plan Unit Linked Life Insurance Policy' bearing No.304323638 of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and filled the proposal form bearing No.A40771170 on dated 10.8.2010 and opted to pay the premium of Rs.30,000/- per annum with sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/-; term of the plan 10 years and premium paying term 10 years and also opted the monthly premium of Rs.2500/- and ECS mode for the payment of monthly premium through the Axis bank i.e. opposite party No.3 was opted and paid the initial premium of Rs.5000/- vide cheque No.16091 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd.

7. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 themselves admitted that the payment of mode opted by the complainant was ECS mode that the payment is to be done directly through his account by the bank. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have specifically submitted in Para No.4 of their written statement on merits that whenever they received the amount from the banker of the complainant, the same has been credited in his account against the abovesaid policy. Due to the non-crediting the amount by the banker of the complainant, the complainant deposited the premium against the policy in question. The premium through ECS mode showed by the bank of the complainant as 'invalid customer ID' and due to this reason the premium has not been received by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 from the bank i.e. opposite party No.3, so his policy lapsed due to non-receiving of the premium. Moreover the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 never directed the complainant to pay the premium amount directly.

8. The opposite party No.2 has written a letter to Rakesh Gupta, the complainant vide Ex.C4. The relevant portion of Ex.C4 is reproduced:-

“.....In order to reinstate your policy we request you to kindly make the payment of Rs.17,499.91/- on or before May 2, 2012 any nearest branch of Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited and on receipt of the revival requirements, the policy shall be reinstated subject to underwriting.

It's our duty to remind you that your insurance policy, which is an important financial planning tool, is critical for your family's secure future. We therefore request you to make the payment at the earliest to enjoy uninterrupted cover.....”

The abovesaid policy lapsed due to the non-payment of the premium on the part of the complainant/bank. Thereafter the complainant has sent various e-mails to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. In reply to the said e-mails, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 conveyed the complainant that the amount has been returned with the reason 'Invalid Consumer ID (UID)'. In the next e-mail i.e. internal correspondence, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have written that 'The transaction was returned with reason 'Invalid Consumer ID (UID)'. The consumer UID registered at the bankers end is '4323638' & the UID as per our records is '120496618'. However, we are arranging to update the correct UID at the bankers end & shall inform you once the same is done'. Thus the evidence placed on file shows that the opposite party No.3 has not credited the premium amount in the account of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 due to 'Invalid Consumer ID (UID)' as there is difference in ID number. As per the record the consumer UID registered at the bankers end is '4323638' & the UID as per the record of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is '120496618'.

9. The opposite party No.3 has not intentionally appeared before this Forum despite receiving the summons. Non-appearance on the part of the opposite party No.3 confirms deficiency in service on its part. In order to run away from its liability the opposite party No.3 has not appeared before this Forum.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party No.3 as it has never informed the complainant regarding the difference of the UID number, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 as they have not received the premium amount from the complainant/opposite party No.3 and policy lapsed. However, the complainant is at liberty to pay the amount of defaulted premiums and can get his policy revived and re-instruct his bank to credit the amount in the account of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after clarifying the doubt of his UID number and at the same time the complainant will maintain the adequate balance in his account in the bank of the opposite party No.3.

11. The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

06-02-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member