DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.257/2014
Dr. Sunil Prakash
S/o Late Shri Satya Prakash
Resident of C-1, HUDCO Place
Behind Ansal Plaza, New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
Dockland Service Ltd.,
A company incorporated under the Companies
Act having its registered office at:
Capitol Cinema Building,
Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow-226001(UP)
Administrative Office at:
Shree Ram Market, 2nd Floor,
Above United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
33, Cantonment Road, Lucknow (UP)
Command office at:
L-76, Jal Vihar Road, 3rd Floor,
Near Goal Chauraha, Lajapt Nagar-II
New Delhi-110024.
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 04.07.2014
Date of Order : 26.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: SH. U.K Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing the Dockland Services Ltd (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to tender an unconditional written apology to the Complainant (ii) the insurance policy for which advance payment had been paid, be directed to issue the policy; (iii) Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment etc.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant had been subscribing the indemnity/insurance policy from the OP since 2007 vide policy No. D-4764. The said policy of the complainant was due for renewal in July, 2013. However, one employee of the OP, Mr. Sujit contacted the Complainant and requested to pay the premium for the said policy in the month of January, 2013 despite the fact that the renewal was due in July, 2013. He was assured by Mr. Sujit that the renewal shall take place in July, 2013 and requested to pay the premium in advance. The Complainant issued Cheque No.000029 dated 05.01.2013 for Rs.16,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Pusa Road, New Delhi vide receipt No.18423. The said payment was given by the Complainant in good faith whereas he was not under obligation to pay in January, 2013. After waiting for renewal for the good amount of period, he wrote e-mail dated 09.12.2013 to OP pointing that there is deficiency in service in not issuing the renewed policy whereas the Hospital where he had been working pressing hard for submission of the copy of the said policy. No resolution was provided by OP. The Complainant was constrained to serve upon the legal notice dated 15.01.2014 to the OP. No reply was preferred by OP to the legal notice, as such; the facts of the said notice deemed to have been admitted by the OP. the said action of OP is not only illegal but also the same is a gross abuse of the process of law, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds and causing wrongful gain for themselves. The Complainant was constrained to serve another notice dated 17.02.2014 and called upon the OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- but in the present proceedings, the complainant has restricted his claim towards compensation at Rs.20,00,000/-. Finding no solution, hence the instant complaint.
3. OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raised some preliminary objections. It is contended that the Complainant is only paying extended membership of the OP i.e 3+3 for defending the cases filed against complainant during the currency of the policy. No premium was collected by OP for issuance of the indemnity policy. The OP company also provides insurance cover alongwith legal cover for defending the case in the court of law against the insured. The OP further contended that it is still committed towards providing legal cover for the membership taken by the Complainant. Membership fee was paid only for the above. The OP has submitted that as per IRDA guidelines, the cheques etc for the premium of policy has to be issued in the name of Insurance Company only not and in individual name. The premium is only taken for one year. The Complainant has paid Membership for 3+3 i.e Six Year. The OP further stated as per IRDA guidelines-
- No premium can be taken more than one year.
- The premium/insurance cheque cannot be issued in the name of agent.
4. OP further maintained that it is evident from the facts relied upon by Complainant that the cheque was issued in the name of Dockland Services Ltd. for membership fee i.e 3+3 i.e six years.
5. Both the parties have filed their written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded. It may be noted that the evidence-in-affidavit was filed by complainant on 10.06.2016 and exhibits are marked in the said affidavit. The counsel for Complainant requested to file application for filing the additional evidence by way of affidavit. Application filed . Written arguments was also filed & copy given to OP on 20.04.2017. Coram was not complete on 20.04.2017 and thereafter the application could not be discussed. Arguments were also heard and reserved for orders. Since no decision was seen from the order sheet hence, the same shall have to be considered. It may relevant to point out here that all these documents are in the realm of the OP and no new documents have been filed as contended by the complainant. If not considered, a prejudice shall be caused to him. OP has not raised any objection about this application. There is vivid mention of the “Application filed” in the order sheet of 20.04.2017. Hence same is taken on record for consideration. The Commission also is of the view that these documents should be considered as these are the policy-cover documents which have been issued by the OP for the previous years.
6. This Commission has gone into the entire material placed on record and due consideration was given to the argument. It would be seen from the record that the complainant had got the indemnity/insurance policy in the year 2007 vide policy No.D-4764. Since then, the complainant had been paying insurance premium to the OP. Likewise the Complainant paid the premium amount of Rs.16,000/- in January, 2013 whereas the renewal of said policy was due in July, 2013. The Complainant was given receipt for said amount by Mr. Sujit- an employee of the OP. The OP has not disputed the receipt of the said amount. The OP contended that it has been in the field of providing insurance cover alongwith legal cover for defending the cases filed against members/doctors upto Apex court. It was further contended that the complainant had only opted for legal cover and so the amount of Rs.16,000/- was taken for membership for six years i.e 3+3 at the concessional rate. The OP also stated that as per guidelines of IRDA, the cheque for premium of policy cannot be taken in the name of company/individual name. That is why, the cheque for Rs.16,000/- was taken in the name of Dockland Servics Ltd.
7. The Commission also looked into the documents filed with the application, however, the exhibits has been marked in the evidence by way of affidavit. The receipts of acknowledgement of the amount by the complainant are also annexed herewith. Some of acknowledgement-cum-receipt are found issued by the Mr. Sujit. However, the OP has not disputed the receipt of payment. The receipt dated 05.01.2013, which is more relevant to present complaint does not specify that the amount so collected is for 3+3 i.e 6 year for the membership of legal cover. It only indicates that “Received with thanks from Sunil Prakash-address- Rupees Sixteen Thousand only towards the Membership fees/premium fee 3+3………”
8. The above does not specify whether the amount was membership fee legal cover or premium fee for professional indemnity cover. Since earlier policy was for professional indemnity policy also, therefore, there is more probability that the amount so collected as per above receipt of 5.01.2013 may be for both.
9. His only contention had been that the complainant’s membership was only for providing legal cover. The Commission also happened to see the letter dated 25.07.2011 where coverage is shown under professional indemnity insurance as well. Further the professional indemnity reflects the total sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for the period 23.07.2011 to 22.07.2012. Likewise, the letter dated 30.07.2012 also shows the professional indemnity coverage for Rs.30,00,000/- under the membership No.D-4764. It is established from the documents that the complainant was insured for both i.e under professional indemnity cover as well as legal cover. These documents are issued from the OP’s end, hence, cannot be denied and has to be considered as true copies.
10. After having considered the facts and circumstances in the case and other material on record, this Commission believes that the OP company has failed in not extending the professional indemnity cover on the pattern of earlier issued policy covers. The Commission is of the considered opinion that OP has failed in discharging its liability. The Complainant could prove its case with the help of documents issued for the earlier year policy.
11. Accordingly, the OP is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation within 03 months from receipt of this order. Failing which rates of interest shall be levied @4% per annum. The other requests of the Complainant has lost its purpose at this stage as case is 8 years old.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
