DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 01/2015
Date of Institution : 02.01.2015
Date of Decision : 08.07.2015
Dhiraj Kumar S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar resident of H.No. B-XIII-1586, Lakhi Colony, Street No. 1, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd., College Road, Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6th Floor MBC Tower, Old No. 90, New No. 199, Luz Church Road, Mylapore-Chennai-04, through its Manager.
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020 through its Managing Director.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla Advocate counsel for complainant.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg Advocate counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. Anuj Mohan Advocate counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Dhiraj Kumar has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against HDFC Bank Ltd., and others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant used to purchase Sarv Suraksha Advantage Policy (a cashless scheme and is a mediclaim policy) from the opposite parties. The last insurance policy No. 51164085 and 51164086 were purchased for the period from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014, from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and other expenses. It is alleged that the opposite parties used to deduct the premium from the saving account No. 03221000043811 of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant was holding the Visa Signature Card No. 4617872001116176 of the opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that at the time of purchasing the policy, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the insurance policy will be purchased online through them. Trusting them, the complainant gave his consent for the purchase of insurance policy and also gave standing instructions, to deduct the premium from his account. It is alleged that the complainant came to know that the opposite party No. 1 has not paid premium from the account of the complainant, as per earlier practice to the opposite parties No. 2 & 3, due to which the complainant has not been issued insurance policy, by the opposite parties.
3. It is further alleged that the complainant met with an accident on 6.3.2014 and was treated in Satguru Partap Singh Appolo Hospital at Ludhiana and Govt. Medical College & Hospital at Chandigarh, for the period from 6.3.2013 to 24.6.2013 and thereafter he was treated in Govt. Medical College & Hospital at Chandigarh, for the period from 16.11.2013 to 25.11.2013 and from 4.2.2014 to 6.2.2014 and lodged his claim. It is further alleged that the opposite parties in connivance with each other has not renewed the policy of the complainant and it is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. It is alleged that the complainant requested the opposite parties many a times for the renewal of policy and premium be charged from his account. Due to non issuance of the renewal policy, the complainant cannot claim his medical dues for the period from 5.8.2014 to 19.8.2014. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To issue direction to the opposite parties to continue the Sarv Suraksha Advantage Policy, which is a mediclaim policy, of the complainant and the premium should be deducted from his account as per earlier practice.
To pay Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony and harassment.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of no cause of action or locus standi, concealment of material facts, complainant is not a consumer etc. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 admitted to the extent that the complainant is having saving account with them and the complainant obtained Visa Gold Credit Card No. 4346786000016179 on 3.5.2008, which was later on upgraded to Visa Platinum Plus Credit Card No. 4050281000791472 and again upgraded to Visa Signature Card No. 4617872001116176. It is further averred that the complainant is using the credit card from 3.5.2008 and has not felt any grievance regarding the credit card of opposite party No. 1. However, it is denied that the opposite party No. 1 approached the complainant for the purchase of insurance policy, rather the complainant of his own got the HDFC Ergo Insurance Policy No. 51164085 & 51164086, from the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 through telephone against debit of the amount of premium through credit card for the period 4.5.2012 to 3.5.2013, which was again renewed on 23.4.2013 for the period 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014. The opposite party No. 1 has also denied of receiving standing instructions for deducting the premium from his account, for unlimited period. It is further submitted that before 3.5.2014, the complainant got his Credit Card No. 4617872001116176 and the account settled on 31.7.2013 vide settlement letter No. S-1306245 and fully closed the card account on 9.2.2014, by paying last EMI of Rs. 22,400/- of settlement amount. So, the complainant could purchase the insurance policy after 3.5.2014, from the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 of his own. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not purchased any policy nor paid any insurance premium through credit card of opposite party No. 1 after the policy from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014, from the opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is further alleged that no insurance policy can be renewed by any institution of its own without the consent of the insured/complainant. The other allegations of the complainant are denied and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Upon notice, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 also appeared and filed separate written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service. On merits, it is pleaded that on the request of complainant, the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 issued policy bearing No. 51164085 (Health Suraksha Policy) and 51164086 (Sarv Suraksha Policy) for the period 4.5.2012 to 3.5.2013, which were lateron renewed the policy period from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014 under Health Suraksha Policy, for the sum assured Rs. 2,00,000/- of hospitalization and Rs. 1,000/- for maximum 30 days and all the terms and conditions of the policy were duly supplied to the complainant. The total premium of both the policies was Rs. 7,919/- and under both the policies the complainant, his wife and his minor son were insured on floater basis, as per terms and conditions.
6. It is further submitted that the claim regarding the medical expenses on accident has already been paid by the opposite parties No. 2 & 3. However, the claim for the period 16.11.2013 to 25.11.2013 has already been repudiated vide letter dated 29.9.2014. It is further submitted that the complainant cannot compel the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to issue the policy and there is no regulation vide which the insurance company is compelled to issue a particular policy to a particular person, except in case of third party coverage. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence copy of policy Ex.O.P1/1 to Ex.O.P1/4, copy of statement of account Ex.O.P1/5, copy of credit card Ex.O.P1/6, copy of settlement letter Ex.O.P1/7, copy of application form Ex.O.P1/8, affidavit of Mukesh Mareja Ex.O.P1/9 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Pankaj Kumar Ex.O.P2.3/1 and closed the evidence.
10. We have gone through the documents tendered by the parties and heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
11. The case of the complainant is that he purchased one Sarva Suraksha Advantage Policy, a cashless scheme and is a mediclaim policy from the opposite parties and the last insurance policy No. 51164085 and 51164086 for the period from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs and other expenses. The opposite parties deducted the premium from his saving account No. 03221000043811 with the opposite party No. 1 (Bank). The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties always used to deduct the premium from his account at their own and he never renewed the policy.
12. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 has not paid the premium from his account as per earlier practice to the insurance company after 3.5.2014, due to which the complainant has not received insurance policy. The complainant met with an accident on 6.3.2014 and took treatment from various hospitals and lodged claim with the opposite parties. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties knew very well that the complainant met with a serious accident and will become permanent liability on them, so they in connivance with each other did not renew the policy of the complainant and it is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant further submitted that due to the said deficiency of the opposite parties, the complainant could not claim his bill for the period from 5.8.2014 to 19.8.2014. Therefore, the complainant has sought relief that direction be issued to the opposite parties to continue the policy in question, by deducting premium from his account as per earlier practice and also to allow litigation expenses alongwith compensation.
13. The case of the opposite party No. 1 is that there is no agreement and even otherwise the credit card account stood settled much prior to the due date of renewal. It is further submitted that the complainant never purchased the insurance policy on any assurance of opposite party No. 1. The complainant never gave any standing instructions to the opposite party No. 1 for deducting the premium from his account for unlimited period. Rather, the complainant purchased the insurance policies from opposite parties No. 2 & 3 of his own from 4.5.2012 to 3.5.2013 and got it renewed further from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014, but before 3.5.2014 complainant got his credit card No. 4617872001116176 account settled on 31.7.2013 vide settlement letter No. S-1306245 and fully closed the card account on 9.2.2014, by paying last EMI of Rs. 22,400/-. However, the complainant could purchase the insurance policy after 3.5.2014 from opposite parties No. 2 & 3 of his own and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
14. The case of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 is that they issued policy bearing No. 51164085 (Health Suraksha Policy) and 51164086 (Sarv Suraksha Policy) for the period 4.5.2012 to 3.5.2013, which were lateron renewed the policy period from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014 under Health Suraksha Policy, the sum assured was of Rs. 2,00,000/- of hospitalization and Rs. 1,000/- for maximum 30 days and all the terms and conditions of the policy were duly supplied to the complainant. It is further submitted that the claim regarding the medical expenses on accident has already been paid by the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and regarding the claim for the period 16.11.2013 to 25.11.2013, the claim has already been repudiated vide letter dated 29.9.2014. The claim for the period 4.2.2014 to 6.2.2014 has not been lodged with them. It is further submitted that the complainant cannot compel the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to issue the policy. It is the prerogative of them to whom the policy has to be issued and to whom the policy has not to issue. There is no regulation vide which the insurance company is compelled to issue a particular policy to a particular person except in case of third party coverage. They have denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant got the insurance policy in question for the period from 4.5.2013 to 3.5.2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and other expenses. It is also not disputed that after 3.5.2014 there was no renewal of policy covering the period after 3.5.2014.
16. The grievance of the complainant is that it was the duty of the opposite party No. 1 (Bank) to deduct the premium from his account for the payment to the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 automatically as instructions to this effect were issued to the opposite party No. 1. However, the deduction of the premium automatically as well as allegations of the standing instructions given to the opposite party No. 1 has been specifically denied by the Bank. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that there was any agreement regarding the deduction of the premium from the account of the complainant and to make the payment to the opposite parties No. 2 & 3, for getting the policy renewed. Even the complainant has miserably failed to place on record any instructions given to the opposite party No. 1 for the deduction of premium from his account for the purpose of renewal of the policy.
17. In the absence of any document or instructions in this regard, this Forum cannot hold that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1. Moreover, in 2006 (1) CLT 327 it was held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, that obligation is on the owner/insured for getting the insurance policy and not on the Bank.
18. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
8th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
