Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.10.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay and update all the dues of the insurance premium for policy no. 0004719915 by allotting the number of units dated 24.06.2010, 24.06.2011 and all future premiums.
- To direct the opposite parties to cover the risk of the complainant’s life and adhere to every clause in the policy.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lakh only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that on the persuasion of employee of opposite party no. 2 ( Bank ) the complainant agreed to accept the bank employees proposal only on the condition that his entire future premium would be strictly deducted from his account bearing no. HSBC account no. 154008015006. Thereafter the bank employee filled application form of the complainant on behalf of complainant in the bank premises and the complainant signed the same in his presence including the voucher for the first premium payment. The complainant cross checked the entire fact and detail of the form and the bank employee also stated that the complainant has completed all the formalities for the policy and as such the policy documents will be sent through courier soon. Thereafter the complainant received the policy documents contained in annexure – 1 series.
It is further case of the complainant that during the end of the first year, in the last week of June 2010, the complainant contacted HSBC, Patna Branch in person and informed them that his premium for policy no. 0004719915 has not been deducted from his account. He was also made aware that some time it may be delayed by week or two. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted HSBC, Patna Branch next month and thereafter he was informed that there was insufficient balance in the complainant’s account while the real fact is that there was sufficient balance in his account for deducting the premium at the relevant time. The complainant received a letter dated 10.08.2010 from the company that his policy has been lapsed. The aforesaid letter was received by the complainant on 17.08.2010. The complainant again contacted the concerned staff of HSBC, Patna and informed about the same. Thereafter he was assured that they ( opposite parties ) will revert back in 15 – 20 minutes which was not done. The complainant thereafter called on toll free no. 18001030003 and registered a complaint, then he received information that his auto premium pay instruction was not registered yet due to signature mismatch and his policy may be reinstated after payment of Rs. 250/- which will be resolve soon within three working days but nothing happened. The photocopy of letter dated 10.08.2010 has been annexed as annexure – II. The complainant thereafter made additional complain on 19.08.2010 through net and he was issued WIN ID 466142 and the complainant’s application was numbered as 200059731 by insurance company. In reply E – mail dated 01.09.2010 they claimed to have sent SMS on 20.11.2009 for the same which the complainant has never received. The complainant has never provided any mobile number to the insurance company. It has been further asserted by the complainant that from perusal of filled scanned insurance form it is crystal clear that everything is filled up manually except mobile number which is seen in typed numerals which is not of the complainant and as such the complaint can not received the reminder of the insurance company. The complainant has annexed the photocopy of the E – mail complaint dated 19.08.2011 and its reply dated 01.09.2011 as will appear from annexure – III series.
The complainant has also approached IRDA through E – mail and received complainant grievance application no. 9/LID/COMP/10-11 which has been annexed as annexure – IV. The complainant also written a letter to opposite parties vide annexure – V requesting to regularise his policy after deducting the premium amount from complainant’s account with scaned signature and also allot number of units. This letter has been annexed as annexure – V. Complainant thereafter received a letter from the opposite parties dated 05.10.2010 to which he repliedthrough letter dated 07.10.2010. when grievance of the complainant was not redressed the complainant approached banking ombudsmen and received a letter ref. 1139/10 dated NIL by banking ombudsmen by which they gave one month time to bank to resolve the issue. Thereafter, the bank replied vide letter dated 11.03.2011 but as the complainant was not satisfied then he again wrote a letter to banking ombudsmen and the opposite parties as will appear from annexure – VII series. The complainant also wrote a letter to HSBC Bank on 28.01.2011 and tried to hand over to them in person but bank refused to accept and misbehaved with him by taking both copies of letter dated 28.01.2011. However, on the next day the complainant received a letter dated 28.01.2011 through courier as will appear from annexure – VIII. The complainant has also received the statement of account from insurance company vide annexure – IX which clearly showed policy lapsed.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a reply has been filed in which it is admitted that complainant had submitted proposal no. 2000059731 dated 18.08.2009 for the opposite party Canara HSBC life unit linked plan which was accepted and the policy was issued which had annual premium of Rs. 25,000/- and provide sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the date of 24.06.2009. However, the opposite party has denied the allegation of the complainant. The opposite party no. 1 has stated that standing instruction mandate (SI) given by the complainant for the deduction of annual premium for the policy from his bank account maintained with the opposite party no. 2 and 3 ( Bank ) was rejected by the Bank on the ground of signature mismatch i.e. Specimen Signature provided by the Bank on SI were different from the specimen signature provided to the bank. In Para – 6 of the reply ( written statement ) of opposite party no. 1 it has been further asserted that considering the urgency and gravity of the issue, the complainant was immediately informed by SMS by opposite party on customer mobile no. 9334214340. It has been also stated that the letter dated 29.05.2010 was sent to the complainant that his annual premium for the policy is due on 24.06.2010 and subsequently an additional letter dated 02.07.2010 was sent to the complainant for updating him about the “overdue of the renewal premium”. The aforesaid letter dated 02.07.2010 has been annexed as annexure – A series. It is further asserted by opposite party no. 1 in Para – 6 of the reply that only after the expiry of 30 days of the grace period from the premium due date opposite party no. 1 wrote a letter dated 10.08.2010 to the customer and informed him about the laps of policy w.e.f. 24.06.201.
Regarding the statement of the complainant in Para – 7 of the complaint petition it has been stated that the complainant continued to change his stand as will appear from annexure – V, VIII and 2 of the complaint petition. It has been asserted that it seems that the complainant failed to timely react on the intimation by the company regarding SMS and rest of his allegation is afterthought. The fact stated by complainant in Para – 9 of the complaint petition have been denied by opposite party no. 1 in Para – 9 of reply. Opposite party has denied that they had any intention of grabing the initial premium deposited by the complainant. It has been submitted by opposite party that vide letter dated 05.10.2010 the complainant was informed that it has agreed to wave of reinstatement charges for the reinstatement of the policy on the receipt of the renewal of premium for the said policy.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 affidavit by way of evidence have been filed.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 and 3 a written statement has been filed raising preliminary objection. It has been stated that the Bank has acted as corporate agent of Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce life Insurance Policy and its role was merely limited to the extent of apprising the details of various insurance policy and assisting to evaluate and decide in choosing the appropriate polcy. It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 2 and 3 that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party no. 2 and 3. Rather the complainant had entered into an agreement with opposite party no. 1 only pursuant to which a policy was issued and dispatched by opposite party no. 1 in the name of the complainant.
The fact asserted by complainant in Para – 7 and 8 of the complaint petition has been denied and it is stated by opposite party no. 2 and 3 that the fact which had not been admitted will deemed to have been denied. Opposite party no. 2 and 3 have also supported the fact stated by the opposite party no. 1.
On behalf of complainant a counter reply to the reply of opposite party no. 2 and 3 have been filed stating therein that opposite party no. 2 and 3 had significant role as the employee of the bank. In whole of the reply the fact stated in complaint petition has been broadly repeated and fact asserted by opposite parties have been broadly denied.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties in details.
As we have mentioned the brief fact asserted by the parties in foregoing paragraphs we think it proper not to repeat the same and record our findings state way.
It is the case of the complainant that he took the insurance policy as per persuasion of bank employees. This fact has been categorically denied by opposite parties.
The opposite party no. 1 has asserted that auto payment could not be done as the specimen signature provided by the complainant SI were different from the specimen signature provided to the bank.
It is worth mention that this fact has not been denied by the complainant by asserting that there was no mismatch rather the complainant has asserted that he had no knowledge about the same. The opposite party no. 1 has asserted that he had informed the complainant immediately sending SMS on the customer mobile no. 9334214340 about the rejection of SI mandate by the bank. This fact has been denied by the complainant. The complainant has asserted that he had not filled up his mobile number in the application form rather same was typed later on. The opposite party no. 1 has asserted that vide annexure – A the complainant was informed about the laps of the policy. Opposite party no. 1 has asserted that he had sent a letter dated 29.05.2010 and 02.07.2010 informing about the non – payment of insurance policy and the aforesaid letter have been annexed as annexure – B series of the affidavit by way of evidence of opposite party no. 1 as well as annexure – A series of reply of opposite party no. 1.
We have no any mean to decide whether the complainant had received SMS or letters containing in annexure – A series and annexure – B series of affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1. It goes without saying that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide disputed fact.
For the reason stated above we find no any merit in this complaint petition and as such it is dismissed but without costs.
Member President
