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

========

HS Gill C/8, CSIO Colony, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh 160030

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh 160030 (UT)

2.      Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36,37 & 38, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160018.

                               ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person

                Sh. K.B. Singh, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv. for OP-2

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant alongwith his family members purchased 6 different types of insurance policies from OP-1 for which all the premiums were paid by him.   However, due to financial problems he discontinued four policies and paid premium for the two policies from his salary account through ECS on 8^th of every month since November 2008. However, again he was not able to pay the premium of the 2 policies.  He contacted the helpdesk of OP-2 for discontinuing/deactivating the ECS and also submitted an application Annexure A-2 dated 27.2.2010 to OP-1 for the same. However, the application was returned with the endorsement that the request for stopping the ECS be submitted to OP-2.  On 2.3.2010 he sent an email Annexure A-3 to OP-2 but still the premiums were deducted from his salary account on 8.3.2010.  On 23.3.2010 he sent another request vide Annexure A-6 to OP-2 for deactivating the ECS and refund of the amount already deducted, but it fell on deaf ears.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 did not dispute the factual matrix.  It has been submitted that the right course and remedy for the complainant was to approach the originating agency i.e. OP-2 and not OP-1 as the mandate came from the originating agency for the ECS and through the inbuilt system the deductions were made.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.             OP-2 in their separate written reply submitted that the complainant was merely a proposer of the insurance policies and not the insured.  The receipt of email from the complainant regarding deactivating the ECS has been admitted but it has been submitted that as the ECS could be stopped only on the written request of the policy holder, the complainant was emailed and advised accordingly.  It has been denied that the complainant was asked to contact his bank by the OP.  The receipt of further complaint vide letter dated 12.3.2010 has also been admitted but  it has been stated that the same was duly replied vide letter 23.3.2010. It has been stated that keeping in view the request of the complainant, the matter was referred to the higher authorities and both the polices were cancelled and the amount of Rs.5286/- and Rs.5247.99 payable to Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, policy holders respectively was placed on record of this Forum vide cheques which was accepted by him.  It has also been pleaded that the request for withdrawal of ECS must be sent a week prior to the date of draw but the same was not done in the present case.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person as well as Learned Counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 and have also perused the record, including the written arguments.

6.             Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the case, on 07.09.2010, the amount in dispute has already been received from OP-2, by the complainant through two cheques, first for Rs.5,286/- in the name of Ratnesh Kaur and second for Rs.5,247.99 in the name of Ravinder Pal Singh; both being the policy holders.  The complainant has received the said cheques on behalf of Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, being their proposer, without prejudice to his right to seek interest and compensation/costs. Therefore, now the main point to be judged is whether the complainant is entitled for any interest and compensation/costs with respect to the present case or not?.

7.             Admittedly, due to financial problems, the complainant decided to discontinue paying the premium of the policies in question, which actually were not in his name but were in the name of his family members i.e. Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, who as per the proposal forms (Annexure A and Annexure A2) were major. The proposal forms along with  copy of Direct debit Mandate form Annexure A-1 has been signed by the complainant being their proposer, therefore the complainant was only the proposer of both the insurance policies in question and not the insured. As per the terms and conditions Annexure B of the policy, at clause 5, it has been clearly mentioned under the heading Surrender that “you may by giving us a prior written request, surrender this policy at any time provided you have paid an amount equal to three ATP`s in case of Regular Pay and 15 Pay Contracts and an amount equal to two ATP`s in case of a 5 pay contracts.  In accordance with Guidelines issued by the IRDA the Guaranteed Surrender Value will only be payable after completion of the third policy anniversary  The Surrender Change to be levied shall be as per the Schedule”.  After going through clause 5 of the terms and conditions, which can be treated as a part of agreement between the parties, it is crystal clear that the policies in question could not have been cancelled without seeking permission in writing from the policy holders, which in the present case are Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, but the same has not been done in the present case initially. Mere sending of email dated 02.03.2010(Annexure C) by the complainant (who was not the insured but was only the proposer) to OP-2 or OP-1, to deactivate the ECS was not a correct step taken by the complainant, which further rooted a cause of delay in the payment of the above mentioned amount made by cheques.  In our view, as per clause 5 of the agreement, only Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh , were entitled to  make a request to the OPs in a written format, to surrender the insurance policies in question but in the present case, it was not so done initially, whereafter  OP-2 had rightly advised the complainant through Annexure D to submit a written request bearing the signatures of the policy holders and for this act of the OP-2, we cannot hold them liable for any deficiency in service of causing delay or unfair trade practice on their part.  Facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the delay, if any, was only due to the request wrongly sent by the complainant through email instead of sending the same by policy holders i.e. Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, in time and for this the OPs cannot be held responsible.  The amount in dispute has been received by the complainant in the shape of above said cheques on behalf of Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, being their proposer and thereafter, nowhere it has been alleged or protested by the complainant, that the amount received by him, is not as per the policy terms and conditions but the complainant thereafter has only sought interest and compensation/costs, which in our view, the complainant is not entitled for because in the present case, the complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Otherwise also, nothing has been produced by the complainant before this Forum to prove that he was entitled or authorized to surrender the said policies on behalf of Smt. Ratnesh Kaur and Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh

8.             In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. There is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                                Sd/-                    Sd/-