DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.252/2012
Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma SENIOR CITIZEN
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma
R/o C-1, Sultanpur Extension,
New Delhi-110030 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Dena Bank
Through its Chief Manager
Chattarpur Branch,
New Delhi
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd.
West Hub, 2nd Floor, Bajaj Finserve
Servey, 208/I-B, Behind Weikfield IT Building
Viman Nagar, Nagar Road,
Pune (Maharashtra) Pin-411014
and
“Bazaz Allianz Building
Opposite Plaza Cinema,
Connaught Place, New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.05.12 Date of Order : 02.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S. S. Fonia, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he has Saving Bank Account No. 024010025217 with the OP-1; that he went to the OP No.1 Bank to procure the bank draft of Rs.40,000/- on 24.11.2011 but he alleges that the one of the employee of OP No.1 Bank, namely, one Mr. Kundan presented some blank papers to the Complainant and got them signed for the alleged purpose of opening the FDR with the OP No.1 for Rs.40,000/-. He alleges that after lot of pursuasion instead of getting bank draft he was handed over a policy/membership No.0243515910 (Sarva Shakti Suraksha Policy) purported to had been prepared and issued by the OP No.2. The welcome letter of said policy bears the membership No.5400029095 dated 24.11.11. The Complainant further states that having never opted to take any insurance policy and the same was alleged to be given to him by the employee of OP No.1 with active connivance of OP No.2. The Complainant served legal notice upon the OPs on 15.02.12 which is said to be not replied. Feeling aggrieved with the deficiency in service of the OPs, he has moved this Forum for redressal of his grievances and has prayed for refund of Rs.40,000/- together with applicable interest on FDR and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by him.
OP No.1 in the written statement has denied the allegations and asserted that the Complainant vide his application dated 24.11.2011 applied for Sarva Shakti Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme of OP No.2 for Rs.10 lacs with annual premium of Rs.40,000/- for a period of 10 years. Copies of the Application of the Complainant in this regard alongwith welcome letter of OP No.2 are attached as Annexure-1 & 2 respectively. Hence, denying any deficiency of service on its part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 in the written statement has stated that the Complainant has no locus-standi to file the instant complaint against OP-2 for the simple reason that the contract of insurance was entered between OP No.1 and OP No.2 under the Group Master Policy No. 0172725492 and no insurance contract was ever entered between the Complainant and OP No.2. The Complainant was only entitled to the benefits under the policy being a member under the group insurance scheme administered by OP No.1 who was the master policyholder. Therefore, they have pleaded that in absence of privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP No.2 the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. OP No.2 has prayed for rejection of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.2. He has not filed the rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 which means that the averments made by OP-1 in the reply have gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Manager (name not legible) of OP No.1 and affidavit of Sh. APS Narang, Sr. Divisional Manager of OP No.2 have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the material placed before us.
The issue before us is, whether the complaint is maintainable or not and, if so, whether the relief prayed for is admissible to the Complainant or not?
Admittedly, the complainant signed certain papers without trying to know the contents on 24.11.2011. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence for requisition for procurement of bank draft and on the other hand the application duly signed by the Complainant for insurance policy is on record which is enclosed as Annex. I. This application has been signed by him.
We cannot ignore the fact that the Complainant with his open ears and eyes had signed the application for insurance policy and, therefore, he cannot plead/take advantage of his innocence /ignorance for his own conduct. In absence of any credible evidence to impute OPs for giving him insurance cover by unfair means and presence of credible evidence we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 02.05.16.
Case No. 252/12
2.5.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
