Delhi

North East

CC/163/2021

Ram Prakash Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

21 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.163/21

In the matter of:

1.         (I)     (II)     (III)             (IV)           2.	Shri Ram Prakash Gupta, Sh. Mangat Ram Gupta (Since Deceased) Through LR’s   Dr. Naveen Gupta (Son), S/o Late Shri Ram Prakash Gupta,   Dr. Praveen Gupta (Son), S/o Late Shri Ram Prakash Gupta,   Abhishek Gupta (Son) S/o Late Shri Ram Prakash Gupta, All R/o: H.No. L6/4, Street No. 22, Near Dilli Darbar, West Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi   Smt. Babita Sharma (Daughter) Widow of Sh. Asit Sharma, OOO Ward No. 11, Gurudwara Ke pass, Nai Basti, Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand 244712   Smt. Bala Rani Gupta, Widow of Sh. Ram Prakash Gupta, At: H.No. L6/4, Street No. 22, Near Dilli Darbar, West Ghonda, Bhajanpura, Delhi	Complainant No. 1                                                 Complainant No. 2
	Versus
1.         2.	The Branch Manager Bank: Canara Bank, Branch office: 2947- Delhi, Gyandeep Vidya Bhavan, Delhi 110053 HDFC Ergo, Through its Director/Manager/AR Registered office at: 1st Floor, HDFC House, Backbay Reclamation, H.T, Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020   Also at: D-301, 3rd Floor, Easter Business District (Magnet Mall), LBS Marg, Bhandup (West) Mumbai 400078	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

29.10.2021 20.12.2023 21.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainants

1. The case of the Complainants as revealed from the record is that the Complainants had a joint saving account bearing no. 2947101017738 in the bank of Opposite Party No. 1. Complainants stated that one official of Opposite Party No. 1 approached the Complainants to purchase the medical policy and told about the benefits/facilities specially for the senior citizens like instalment directly deducted from the account etc. On assurance of the Opposite Party      No. 1, Complainants had purchased two medical policies from the Opposite Party No. 2, one was in the name of Complainant No. 1 and other was in the name of Complainant No. 2. Complainants had been paying their instalments regularly by keeping the sufficient balance in their account. It is their case that instalments were automatically deducted every year in the month of February from the joint account of the Complainants. Complainants stated that in the month of September 2020, the Complainants came to know that the policy amount for the year February 2021 was not deducted from their saving account. Complainants enquired about this from the officials of Opposite Parties but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainants further stated that Opposite Party No. 2 every year issued fresh medical card with new application number but in the year 2021, Opposite Party No. 2 did not issued any medical card. Complainants further stated that Opposite Parties without any intimation had deprived and discontinued their medical policy. On 04.10.2021, Complainants sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties but they did not given any reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainants have prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to continue their medical policy by deducting amount from their account without any charge. Complainants also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 35,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2022.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant No. 2

3. The Complainant No. 2 in support of case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainants. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainants that they have purchased two separate health insurance policies in their name. It is their case that the premiums for the policies were automatically deducted from their saving account. It is their case that in the month of September 2020 they came to know that the premium for the year 2020-2021 was not deducted from their account. Thus, it is revealed that as per the case of the Complainants the insurance premium was automatically deduced from their saving account. However, they have not stated anywhere that they had inspected their bank for “Auto Debit” for payment of the insurance premium. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainants had instructed their bank to pay automatically the insurance premium to Opposite Party                    No. 1. Therefore, the version of the Complainants cannot be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 21.02.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)