Haryana

Karnal

CC/194/2018

Jagdish Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surjeet Chauhan

23 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 194 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.08.08.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 23.01.2020

 

Jagdish Anand son of Shri Chuni Lal Anand, resident of House no.16, Jarnailly Kothi, opposite Partap Public School, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Canara Bank, New Grain Market Branch, Sector-3, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Surjeet Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Gulshan Galhotra Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is a partner of M/s Jagdish Anand & sons, shop no.529, New Grain Market, Karnal and doing the business of Commission Agent under the name and style of M/s Jagdish Anand & sons, shop no.529, New Grain Market, Karnal. The complainant has maintained his firm account in the name of M/s Jagdish Anand & Sons bearing account no.3161201000158 with the OP. The Branch Manager of the OP adduce the complainant for issuance of health policy in his name and in the name of their family members and alleged that the Canara Bank in collaboration with an insurance company, started issuing the health policies in the name and style of Apollo Munich Health Insurance and it gives health covers on a very reasonable premium amount. On the assurance of the Manager of the OP the complainant obtained two health policies from the OP, one in the name of his wife Anu Anand bearing policy ID no.10009357280 and policy no.120100/12001/2015/A004962/020 for the period 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 and similarly second policy was obtained in his name bearing policy ID no.10009348293, policy no.120100/12001/2015/A004962/017 for amounting to Rs.five lakhs for a period of 04.11.2015 to 03.11.2016. At the time of taking the policy, the instructions was given to the OP for auto deduction of amount every year from the bank account of complainant maintained with the OP regarding both the policies and it was also instructed for auto renewal of policies every year by auto deducting the amount from the account of complainant.

2.             The complainant suddenly fell seriously ill and he was got his treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and he has to underwent by-pass surgery and spent a sum of Rs.2,98,787/- as per the bills, given by the Fortis Hospital, Mohali and whereas more than Rs.one lakh was spent regarding transportation and as well as follow up treatment etc. and the complainant was remained admitted as indoor patient in Fortis Hospital, Mohali w.e.f. 04.01.2017 and discharged on 12.01.2017. After discharge, complainant approached to the OP for claiming the amount against his health policy, which was obtained on 4.11.2015 with a direction of auto renewal, by auto deduction of amount from the account of complainant firm. The Branch Manager after going through the record felt sorry and alleged that in both the policies, there is an instructions of auto renewal by auto deducting the amount of premium every year from the account of complainant, but the amount of premium for a period of 2.11.2016 to 3.11.2017 has deducted regarding the health policy of Anu Anand, but due to inadvertence/negligence, the amount of health policy in the name of Jagdish Anand has not been auto deducted from the account of complainant, therefore, the said health policy of Jagdish Anand count not be renewed for the period of 04.11.2016 to 03.11.2017, therefore, the insurance company is unable to pay any claim against the policy of complainant. The complainant made a representation to OP and as well as to their higher authorities to pay the expenses of medical treatment, because due to negligence of OP, the policy could not be renewed, but no action has been taken and no claim has been paid against the health policy of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party; OP is not at all concern with the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and there was no privity of OP regarding the policy and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP is a Corporate Body under working Resolution Act and doing business of banking having its Head Office at J.C. Road, Bangalore and among other branches one of the branch is situated at Grain Market, Karnal and the OP having only the account bearing no.3161201000158 of the complainant and the OP never adduced to the complainant for issuance of Health Policy. It is denied that the complainant was given the instructions to the OP for auto deduction of the amount every year regarding the insurance policy from the bank account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 05.07.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Balbir Singh Brahmania Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on 18.12.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Admittedly, complainant is having account no.3161201000158 in the bank of the OP. As per the version of the complainant, the Branch Manager of the OP induced the complainant for issuance of health policy in his name and in the name of his family members and alleged that the OP is collaboration with the insurance company i.e. Apollo Munich Health Insurance. On the assurance of the Bank Manager of the OP, complainant purchased health policy one in the name of his wife Anu Anand and another in his name, for the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each. At the time of purchasing policy, instructions were given to the OP for auto deduction of the amount of both the policies every year from the bank account of the complainant maintained with the OP and it was also instructed for auto renewal of the policy every year from auto deduction of the amount from the account of the complainant. Learned counsel of complainant relied upon the authority 2011 (1)CPC 441 case titled as State Bank of India Versus Kashmir Singh & Anr. in which Hon’ble National Commission has held that Renewal of policy-Insured tractor damaged in accident- Bank has undertaken to make payment for premium amount but policy was not renewed promptly by bank for which complainant should be reimbursed of amount of loss either by bank or by insurance company-Order of Fora blow granting relief to the complainant upheld-Revision dismissed. Further, in 2012(2)CPC 52 case titled as State Bnak of Hyderabad Versus Nirmala & Anr. in which Hon’ble National Commission has held that Banking Service-Insurance-Insurance claim was repudiated on satisfactory ground due to lapses on part of employees of the petitioner bank-Borrower did everything including proposal for insurance or authorization to debit amount of one time premium to his account at the time of sanction of loan-Borrower cannot be held responsible for lapses on the part of bank officials which resulted in lapse of policy due to negligence on the part of bank as contract of insurance remained incomplete till his death-Order of State Commission granting relied to respondent upheld-Petitioner directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

8.             The complainant has undergone bypass surgery and spent Rs.2,98,787/- as per bill details Ex.C7 issued by Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The complainant applied for reimbursement of the same treatment amount but insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that no premium has been received by them or sent by the OP.

9.             The complainant had purchased two policies one for himself and another for his wife. As per bank account statement Ex.C3/Ex.R1, amount of Rs.4565/- has been deducted on 02.11.2015 for the premium of the policy purchased in the name of Anu Anand and on 04.11.2015 amount of Rs.4565/- has been deducted for the premium of policy purchased in the name of complainant from the account of the complainant maintained by the OP. As per the account statement Ex.C4 and Ex.R1, the premium for renewal of the policy of Anu Anand has been deducted from the account of the complainant and the said policy has been renewed by the insurance company on receipt of the premium through bank of OP.

10.            It is not denied by the OP, that there was no collaboration of the OP with the insurance company. When the OP i.e. bank has auto deducted the premium amount of the insurance policy belonging to Anu Anand and same was transferred to the account of insurance company, then it was also the duty of the OP to deduct the premium amount of the policy of the complainant. It is not the case of the OP that there were insufficient funds in the account of the complainant.

11.            The OP bank has taken a plea that the complainant has put a strict proof with regard to the instructions given by him to the bank for auto deducting the premium amount of his policy through his account. On the other hand, OP himself has been deducting the premium amount of the policy belonging to the wife of complainant till date from the same account.  If it is so, then it becomes essential for the OP to produce any proof for that the complainant has not instructed them to auto deduct the premium amount of his policy and rather instructed only for auto deduction of the premium amount of the policy of his wife.

12.            Further, it has been proved that the complainant has spent Rs.2,98,787/- for his treatment, vide bill details Ex.C7 and bills Ex.C8 to Ex.C12.The insurance company could not pay the bill amount as the OP has not sent the premium amount to the insurance company belonging to complainant, but from the record, it is crystal clear that it is the negligence on the part of the OP that has not sent the premium amount of the policy belonging to the complainant to the insurance company despite instructions given by the complainant to the OP. Hence, we are of the considered view that the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. The authorities cited by the learned counsel of complainant fully applicable to the case in hand.

13.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.2,98,787/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.01.2020                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

       

        (Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                           Member