Haryana

Karnal

92/2013

Indro W/ Shiv Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vikash Kashyap

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 92 of 2013

                                                    Date of instt. 18.02.2013

                                                     Date of decision 23.11.2017

 

Indro widow of Sh. Shiv Raj, resident of House no.45, Ward no.1, VPO Bhagwanpur, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

1. IDBI Bank 1^st 218, 219, Sector-12 Karnal, Haryana (132001), through its Manager.

2.  IDBI Fedral Life Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor, Tradeview, Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 (Regd. Office), through its Manager.

                                          

     ..…Opposite Parties.

 

  Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh……….President    

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri Vikas Kashyap Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri K.P.Singh Advocate for opposite parties.

             

              

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant is widow as well as nominee of her husband, whose life was insured with the OPs. The husband of the complainant (hereinafter referred as deceased) has paid the premium. OP no.1 was having a tie-up arrangement with the OP no.2 for facilitating termsurance/ life insurance facility to the customer and OP no.1 act as an agent of OP no.2. Deceased applied for a life insurance claim with OPs, vide application form no.107131239 and paid the premium amount of Rs.10663/- on 2.6.2012 with OP no.1. OPs vide requirement letter dated 16.6.2012 intimated to complainant’s husband about the income proof document as well as about the medical test formalities, in response of which deceased appeared before doctors penal of OPs and gave the samples as required. It has further been alleged that vide acknowledgment letter dated 23.6.2012, OPs acknowledged the receiving of premium amount. However, not issued the policy of deceased and lingered the matter on ground of delay in internal procedural formalities. The husband of complainant died on 11.11.2012. He approached the office of OPs and demanded for the insured amount i.e. for Rs.5 lac, but the OPs refused to pay the same. Complainant sent a legal notice through her counsel to the OPs in that regard but to no effect. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus standi and cause of action. On merits, It has been submitted that on 11.11.2012 Mr. Shivraj the husband of complainant died and the complainant was duly informed that her husband had not gone for medical examination and after waiting for more than two months the OPs have sent back the premium amount by issuing a cheque for Rs.10,663/- in favour of Shivraj. It has further been submitted that there was no payment of amounts by the complainant to the OP no.1. The deceased life assured expired prior to issuance of the policy and no services had been given by OP no.1 as they were only the collection agents on behalf of OP no.2. The said refund cheque was again sent through speed post which was returned back undelivered and was returned to the OP no.2 where OP no.2 had sent that letter alongwith cheque to OP no.1 which was received on 30.10.2012 that this was informed to the deceased and requested to visit the OP no.1 and collect the DD of Rs.10,663/-. Shri Raghbir one relative of complainant visited the Karnal branch on 1.11.2012 and was informed that the policy of deceased can only be issued by through the process of medical checkup only since deceased never approached the OP no.1 inspite of various reminders and cheque was refunded to OP no.1 on 2.11.2012. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written statement on the similar grounds and denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and document Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 4.11.2014

5.             On the other hand, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Ved Parkash Ex.R1 Sony George Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R13 and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             It is admitted by the parties that the deceased applied for Life Insurance with the OPs, vide application form no. 107131239 and paid the premium amount of Rs.10,663/- on 2.6.2012.

8.             According to the complainant after the deposit of the premium amount the OPs vide letter dated 16.6.2012 intimated the deceased about the required income proof document as well as the medical test formalities for which the deceased had to appear before the doctors Penal of  the OPs and gave the sample as required but the deceased has not completed the formalities. As the deceased has not fulfilling the necessary requirement of the OPs due to this reason the OP no.2 did not issue the policy. It is further argued by the learned counsel for OPs that the OP no.2 sent the cheque no.210915 dated 3.8.2012 for the refund of the premium amount to the OP no.1 for further delivery to the deceased as the address of the deceased was written incorrect in the papers received by the OP no.2. The OPs have placed on the file the original cheque no.210915 dated 3.8.2012 for an amount of Rs.10,663/- which according to OP no.2 was received back. The OPs have also placed the letter dated 3.8.2012 on the file, vide which the said cheque was sent.  The OPs also placed on the file the copy of letter dated 16^th June, 2012 vide which the deceased was asked for providing the income proof as well as medical tests. The OPs have also placed on file other letter dated 26^th June 2012 and 16^th July 2012 regarding the fulfillment of these requirements. From these documents it is argued by the OPs that inspite of the above mentioned letters, the deceased has not provided and fulfilled the requirements of the OPs and due to this reason the policy was issued. The complainant alleged that the deceased has completed all the formalities and he was appeared before the doctors Penal of the OPs but the OPs did not issue the policy of insurance. To prove that the deceased has completed the requirements made by the OPs, the complainant has not placed any document on the file. Moreover, the copy of letter dated 16.6.2012, vide which the deceased was asked for fulfillment of abovementioned requirements has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C2, which clearly indicates that the deceased has to complied with the requirements of the OPs. In this letter it has been specifically mentioned by the OPs that “kindly note that we will commenced the risk cover only from the date of issuance of policy.” It is also admitted fact between the parties that the insurance policy has not been issued in the present case. The OPs alleged that the formalities as mentioned above were fulfilled by the deceased and due to this reason the insurance policy was not issued whereas according to the complainant, the deceased has completed all the formalities and requirements of the OPs. As already stated above, the complainant has not placed any such document on the file, vide which it can be said that the complainant has completed the requirements of the OPs. The complainant has produced an authority citied 2012(2) CLT page 277 (Punjab State Commission) titled as Urvashi Goyal and others Versus M/s Metlife Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another. As per the facts of this authority, the deceased has completed the entire requirements including medical test and this fact was admitted by the insurance company but the policy was not issued by the insurance company. So the authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case it is not proved on the file that the formalities have been completed by the deceased. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9.             It is clear from the record of the file that the premium amount of Rs.10,663/- was not received by the deceased as the original cheque which could not be delivered to the deceased is placed on the file by the OPs. The complainant has filed the present complaint being the nominee of deceased and this fact has not been denied specifically by the OPs. Therefore, in our view the complainant is entitled for the said amount. As the said amount is lying with the OPs for a long period, so the complainant is entitled for the interest thereon.

10.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is hereby made clear that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,663/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of receipt till its realization. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.11.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                       (Anil Sharma)

                            Member