This is a complaint made by one Shyamapada Manna, son of Late Sarat Ch. Manna residing at Lalkuthi para, Govt. Housing, QTR No.C/6, P.O. & P.S.-Suri, District.- Birbhum, PIN-731101 against (1) IDBI Bank, Bansdroni branch, OMKAR residency (1st floor), 223, NSC Bose Road, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.1, (2) IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 1st floor, Trade View, Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P.B.Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013, OP No.2, (3) IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Santiniketan Building (2nd floor), Room No.1, 8 Camac Street, Kolkata-700 017, OP No.3 and (4) Gautam Saha, Asst. Manager, Asset Officer, Retail Banking Group, IDBI Bank, Bansdroni Branch, OMKAR Residency, 223, NSC Bose Road, Kolkata-700 047, OP No.4, praying for necessary order to the concerned authority of IDBI Bank, Bansdroni Branch and the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai to refund the premium to the tune of Rs.13,138 with interest with compensation and litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that in the month of April, 2014, Complainant went to IDBI Bank and requested the authority for a home loan of Rs.8,00,000/-. As per the terms and conditions he opened a Savings Bank Account on 8.4.2014.
Before disbursement of the home loan Mr. Goutam Saha, OP No.4 offered a proposal for an insurance in favor of the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and convinced Complainant that only single premium has to be paid otherwise loan cannot be sanctioned. Complainant agreed to the proposal of the OP. Accordingly, Complainant paid Rs.13,138/- as single premium of the insurance in favour of the IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. On 20.5.2014, Complainant received the certificate of insurance through courier service. But, after going through the certificate he noticed that the premium payment terms is for five years, which was contrary to the assurance of OP No.4. So, he disagreed with the terms of the policy and submitted a petition to the Chief Operating Officer, IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd., along with original certificate of Insurance through Branch Manager on 26.5.2014 within the free look out period.
OP No.4 returned the petition and the certificate on 2.2.2015, after a lapse of more than eight months without any cogent reason and did not settle the dispute.
Again on 13.2.2015 Complainant submitted another petition to the insurance authority through Branch Manager which Goutam Saha acknowledged it. Getting no redressal he sent a petition to the Chief Operating Officer, IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. But, since his request was not adhered to he filed this complaint.
OP No.1 & 4 filed written version and denied the allegations of the Complainant. Their contention is that on or about December, 2013, Complainant approached the OP Bank for availing a home loan and after understanding the terms and conditions and features, in January, 2014 he applied for the loan to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- and OP Bank sanctioned Rs.8,00,000/- on 21.1.2014.
An agreement containing detailed terms and conditions was executed on 18.4.2014. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the loan was repayable in sixty equal monthly instalments @ Rs.17,000/-.
Further, as per the terms and conditions the Complainant was to be insured and Complainant chose the insurance policy as per his choice. Complainant does not have any grievance against the sanctioned loan. Further, OPs have stated that Complainant did not approach to the Bank within free look period. So, these OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.2 & 3 have filed separate written statement and denied the allegations of the complainant. Further, they have stated that IDBI Federal Loansurance Group Life Plan is a group of life plan that enables a lending institution to cover the lives of its borrowers. As per the choice of the Complainant the insurance policy was issued. Certificate was issued on 28.4.2014. The policy was lapsed due to nonpayment of the premium. Complainant did not approach for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. So, the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OPs have filed questionnaire to which Complainant has filed affidavit-in-reply and OPs have also filed evidence to which Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OPs have filed reply. Both the sides have filed written argument.
Main points for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has asked for refund of first premium amount which he paid and which is Rs.13,138/- of course with compensation and litigation cost.
In this regard, on perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant which are Xerox copies, it appears that Mark ‘A’ is a Xerox copy of homeloan document, Mark ‘B’ is a Xerox copy of the Pass Book of the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant. Mark’C’ is letter addressed by the OP to the Complainant where OPs have given this letter to the Complainant for having insurance policy with them. This letter is dated April 28, 2014. This letter annexed premium payment receipt. Mark ‘D’ is a letter written by Complainant dated 26.5.2014 to the Chief Operating Officer, IDBI Federal Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein Complainant has stated that he was assured by Mr. Goutam Saha that he is purchasing single premium policy. That means, Complainant for the first time on 26.5.2014 issued a letter to the insurance authority for the mis-understanding which took place and by which he accepted the policy.
In Paragraph 9 of the complaint, it appears that Complainant has stated the a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certificate of insurance is provided. But, at this stage Ld. Advocate for OPs submitted that this Mark ‘D” does not reveal that it was sent to the OPs on the date 26.5.2014. There is no copy of the receipt of sending the letter is filed. Further, she submitted that unless Complainant proves this within the free look period, the prayer of the Complainant cannot be allowed. Again Mark ‘ E’ is another letter reminding the OPs that his grievance was not redressed. Mark ‘F’ is a letter dated 13.2.2015 which is also a reminder.
But, on this letter it is mentioned that it was posted on 16.2.2015. Further, the first letter which Complainant wrote just after receipt of the policy, does not mention as to how it was sent and no postal receipt is filed. So, these documents do not establish that Complainant informed the matter within the free look out period.
Further, nowhere from written version, it appears that Complainant raised the dispute within the free look out policy.
No doubt from the question and reply of Complainant it does not appear that he informed about the cancelling of the policy within free look out period. But, there is no supporting document to that effect. No postal or AD card is filed that Complainant sent his letter which he has filed which is after a lapse of six days.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to the relief. Similarly, when the Complainant is not entitled to the main relief, he is not entitled to any compensation or litigation cost.
Hence,
ordered
RBT/CC/133/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
