West Bengal

Birbhum

MA/83/2018

Shri B.D.Barman, S/O Lt S.D.Barman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, SBI, Suri Branch - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

Both parties file hazira.

            Plea raised by the O.P No. 1 and 2 SBI in their W/V that the present case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed is taken up for passing order treating the same as M.A No. 83/2018.

            Perused the complaint, W/V filed by the O.P No. 1 and 2, W/O filed by the complainant against the plea of non-maintainable of the case raised by the O.P No. 1 and 2 and other materials on record.

            We find that in para-5 of their W/V the O.P No. 1 and 2 raised a plea that the petitioner is not consumer under the present O.Ps within the meaning of U/s 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

            But in their said W/V the O.P No. 1 and 2 have not mentioned any reason as to why the case is not maintainable and whey the complainant is not consumer under them.

            We find that the complainant Bhamtimoy Das Barman was an officer of O.P No.1 and 2. The O.P No. 1 and 2 SBI entered an agreement with the O.P No.4 United Ins. Co. for Group Health Ins. Policy for the retired employees/Officers of SBI under supervision of O.P No. 2 SBI, Administrative Office, Durgapur and being a pension holder the complainant became a policy holder of same Health Policy.

            Acknowledgment the receipt dt. 19.03.2016 shows that Rs. 14,049/- was received from the complainant Bhaktimony Das Barman by the O.P No.1, SBI, Suri Branch for membership of Family Floater Group Medical policy ‘B’ for submission of the same to O.P No.2 Adm. Officer, SBI.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to hold that relation between the complainant and O.P No. 1 and 2 i.e. consumer and service provider has been established and the complainant is a consumer under the O.P No.1 and 2 and plea raised by the O.Ps that the present case is not not-maintainable is liable to be rejected.

 Hence

                        Ordered,

                                    that the plea raised by the O.P No. 1 and 2 SBI in their W/V that the present case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed i.e M.A case No. 83/2018 is rejected on contest but no cost.

Thus the M.A is disposed of.