Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Rajwant

Opponent through Abhay Nevagi & Associates

Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President              Place   :  PUNE

                                      J U D G M E N T

                                           10/07/2014                                                                                                                                               

          This complaint is filed by the consumer against the service provider for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts are as follows,

1]       The complainant is a resident of Yerwada, Pune – 6.  The opponent no. 1 is the Head Office of HDFC Bank and the opponent no.2 is its branch office, which is situated at Nana Peth, Pune – 2.  It is the case of the complainant that he is a senior citizen and is holding mediclaim and personal accident policy from National Insurance Company Ltd. in his name as well as on the name of his wife Mrs. Roshani Omprakash Mangal.  On 30/6/2010, the policy was going to expire.  In order to continue the benefits of the policy, he had to renew the said policy before the date of expiry.  Hence, he had issued cheque of Rs. 14,464/- dated 25/06/2010 as a premium of his own policy as well as for the policy of his wife.  The sum assured under the Mediclaim policy for complainant and his wife each was Rs.1,00,000/- and sum assured under the Personal Accident Policy for complainant was of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for his wife was Rs. 1,00,000/-.  On 23/06/2010 the complainant had deposited cheque of an amount of Rs.18,604/- drawn on HDFC Bank in his saving account of Nana Peth branch and issued cheque of Rs. 14,464/- on 25/06/2010 in the name of National Insurance Company.  He was expecting that his cheque will be passed, because the cheque, which was deposited by the complainant, should have been cleared within 2 to 3 days as per the norms of the bank.  However, the cheque which was issued in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. was returned with endorsement “Funds insufficient” and accordingly the policy of the complainant and his wife was cancelled.  When the complainant approached to Manager of opponent no. 1 and 2, he had sent letter to the Insurance Company for renewal of the policy by stating reason for the delay in clearance.

2]      It is the case of the complainant that due to negligent service of the opponent, he had suffered a lot, as there is break in his insurance policy, as the policy was not renewed before expiration of the previous policy.  Now he is unable to claim mediclaim for pre-existing disease.  Even though, there is sufficient amount in his account, the cheque was wrongly dishonoured, that amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence he has claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the opponents.

3]      The opponents resisted the complaint by filing written version in which it has denied the contents of the complaint.  It is admitted that the complainant is an account holder of the opponent no. 2 and he had issued cheque in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as deposited another cheque in his account.  It is the case of the opponent that the cheque, which was deposited by the complainant, was in the name of Mangal.  Opponent suspected about the surname of the complainant.  Hence, the cheque was not cleared immediately.  In order to avoid wrong credit of cheque in the wrong account, the said precaution was taken by the opponent.  The name of the account holder, which is mentioned in the slip was ‘Omprakash C. Mangal’ and opponent had doubt about the surname.  In that circumstances the delay was caused for crediting the cheque in the account of the complainant and during that period the cheque, which was issued in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd., was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.  It was the duty of the complainant to verify the balance in his account before issuing the cheque of his premium in the name of National Insurance Co.  The complainant himself is negligent and he did not take precaution to keep sufficient balance in his account.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the opponent.  The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4]      After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-

REASONS    :-

5]      On careful perusal of the pleadings, documentary evidence and arguments of both the parties, it is crystal clear that the complainant is account holder of the opponent no. 2.  He had issued cheque no.207463 for Rs. 14,464/- dated 25/06/2010 in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. for depositing premium of his mediclaim policy and personal accident policy.  It is also brought on record that the complainant had deposited cheque no. 8129 for Rs. 18,604/- on 23/06/2010 in his account and that cheque was not credited in his account.  The said cheque was deposited on 23/06/2010 and the complainant was under impression that the cheque, which was deposited by him, would be credited and the second cheque which was issued in the name of National Insurance Co. Ltd. would be cleared.  However, the first cheque was not credited as per the expectation of the complainant.  Hence, funds in his account were found to be insufficient and the cheque issued in the name of National Insurance Co. was dishonoured.  That’s why the mediclaim policy and personal policy accident policy was not renewed and the complainant had required to obtain fresh policy.  According to the complainant, even though, he had not required to submit any mediclaim to that insurance company during that period, his right to claim mediclaim for pre-existing disease was taken away by the insurance company, as it was a fresh policy.  As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy between the complainant and insurance company, complainant as well as his wife were entitled to mediclaim, if policy is renewed from year to year and that benefit of the complainant was taken away due to dishonour of the cheque.

6]      It is the case of the opponent that first cheque, which was issued by the complainant for depositing in his own account could not be credited well in time, as there was doubt as regards name of the complainant and in order to verification of the name of the complainant, delay was caused for crediting amount in the account of the complainant.  According to the complainant, it was duty of the opponent to inform the complainant about dishonour of the cheque and this fact was not informed by the opponent to the complainant well in advance, so that he could have made arrangement for clearance of the cheque.  It is significant to note that, it is the duty of the complainant to verify the balance in the account while issuing cheque in the name of the third party.  He can not escape from the liability by assumption and presumption.  He can not say that he was expecting,  his first cheque will be cleared and thereafter the cheque, which was issued in the name of National Insurance Company will he honoured.  As the complainant himself is not diligent in present proceeding, he did not take care about keeping the sufficient funds in his account and issued cheque in the name of National Insurance Company.  In these circumstances, it is the considered opinion of this Forum that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.  In the result, this Forum answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed with no

order as to the costs.

                   2.       Copies of this order be furnished to

the parties free of cost.

3.       Parties  are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for

Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.