Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/61/2019

Robin Noyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Joy

17 Jul 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/61/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	07/02/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	17/07/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robin Noyal son of Sh. Noyal Masih, Resident of House No.1040/1, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1.   Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Office at 2^nd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector 48, Sohna Road, Gurugram – 122018, Haryana (India).

 

2.   The Managing Director, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, having its Office at 2^nd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector 48, Sohna Road, Gurugram – 122018, Haryana (India).

 

3.   The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh (Branch Office Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited).

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   RATTAN SINGH THAKUR PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR        MEMBER

          DR.S.K.SARDANA           MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Joy, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Anuj Dewan, Advocate (OP No.3 already ex-parte).

 

PER DR.S.K.SARDANA, MEMBER

 

In brief, the Complainant purchased a Smart Future Plan from Opposite Parties bearing Policy No. 15000272047, which is one of the policies floated in the joint venture of the Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited (Annexure C-1). The premium of the said plan was Rs.50,000/- with a premium payment term of 10 years and the lock-in-period provided was 5 years. The Complainant was told that he has flexibility to change the payment mode from annually to monthly. Accordingly, the Complainant made several requests to the Opposite Parties to convert the premium plan of the Policy from annually to monthly as per para 2.2 of the Policy, but to no success. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-7), but the same did not fructify. Therefore, as a measure of last resort, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 15.04.2019.

 

3.      Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 (Opposite Party No.3 already ex-parte) contested the complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant submitted a request with respect to Standing Instruction Mandate with the Bank and also requested to change the premium payment mode from yearly to monthly basis. Accordingly, vide letter dated 06.01.2017 the Complainant was informed that as per the terms of the Policy Contract, the premium payment method pertaining to the Policy in question cannot be converted to monthly basis since the terms and conditions of the Policy clearly provide for the option of changing of premium payment mode only when the minimum premium is Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 to which the answering Opposite Parties duly replied vide letter dated 10.01.2018. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.

 

5.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the Complainant.

 

7.      Clause 2.2 of the Policy Contract, which reads as under: -

 

“2.2 Change in Premium Payment Mode: - You may change your Premium payment mode anytime during the Policy Term, by submitting a written request to us, subject to your giving us a 60 days written notice for such change, provided your annualized premium is equal to or more than minimum annualized premium applicable for proposed mode of premium payment.”

 

After perusing the aforesaid clause, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties rightly rejected the request of the Complainant in accordance with the terms of the Policy Contract as the policy in question cannot be converted into monthly premium payment mode since the said policy does not meet the threshold requirement for initiating the request for conversion of premium payment mode in consonance with the afore extracted clause of the policy contract.

 

8.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

17^th July, 2020

                               Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”