THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 10 of 2014
Date of Institution : 01.01.2014
Date of Decision : 18.06.2015
Ashwini Vashist S/o J.P. Vashist at 1958, Kucha Dial Singh, Katra Baggian, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
The Branch Manager, ING Vysya Life Insurance , SCO 44, Nagpal Towers II, 3rd Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar 143001
The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh. Amit Bhatia,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Ramesh Kumar. Sharma,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Ashwani Vashist under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he got life Insurance Policy bearing No. 00630207 from opposite party No.1 on 28.3.2007 and paid the renewal premium. Complainant has alleged that he needed money and thus on 17.9.2013 he approached opposite party No.1 for pre-mature surrender of the aforesaid policy. Complainant has further alleged that in the premature surrender request letter, there is column of account number in which the customer desires to get the proceeds of premature payment. On the said premature surrender request letter received by opposite party No.1 on 17.9.2013 complainant mentioned his saving bank account No. 02631000151181 maintained with opposite party No.2. But opposite party No.1 credited the amount of surrender value of the policy Rs. 33353.78 paise to the wrong bank account of the complainant bearing No. 02631000003572 which was lying dormant with opposite party No.2. Opposite party No. 2 deducted @ Rs.393.26 paise per month from September 2012 to August 2013 i.e. for 12 months with an additional entry of Rs. 112.36 paise totalling Rs. 4831.48 paise. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount deducted by opposite party No.2 . Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and
-3-
signed the proposal form dated 19.3.2007 for life insurance policy on the basis of which the policy was issued to the complainant. The premium opted by the complainant was Rs. 834/0 to be paid monthly for premium paying term of 10 years. The sum assured of the policy was Rs. 50,040/- . It was submitted that complainant policy was foreclosed as per clause 4.2 of the policy terms and conditions and the complainant was requested to submit the requisite documents in order to process the amount. However, when the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents , opposite party was left with no option to make payout to the complainant bank account number which was registered with the company. Accordingly on 5.9.2013 the opposite party had transferred the amount of Rs. 33,353.78 paise to complainant bank account. Subsequently the complainant had approached opposite party and submitted the requisite documents on 18.9.2013 but at that time opposite party had already transferred the foreclosed amount to his bank account.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that the complainant has account with opposite party No.2 bank bearing No. 02631000003572 which became dormant on account of the fault of the complainant for not maintaining minimum amount. It was submitted that electronic clearing services (ECS) credit are filled by the customer at the time of surrendering the policy or for any type of refund. Opposite party No.2 bank has no liability as the credit amount was sent by
-4-
opposite party No.1 through ECS mode and it was the prime responsibility of opposite party No.1 to make sure that the credit amount actually goes to the account number mentioned in the concerned form. It was submitted that if the credit amount did not go to the running account of the complainant i.e. account No. 02631000151181 maintained with opposite party No.2, the fault lies with opposite party No.1. It was submitted that charges were rightly deducted by opposite party No.2 as these charges had been levelled on account of not maintaining average monthly balance of account No. 02631000003572 . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-2, copy o f surrender letter Ex.C-3, copy of bank statement Ex.C-4, copy of notice Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered copy of proposal form Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to OP1/9 and affidavit of Sh.Chethan P. General Manager Ex.OP1/10.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Kapoor Br.Manager Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the
-5-
ld.counsel for the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant got life Insurance Policy bearing No. 00630207 from opposite party No.1 on 28.3.2007 and paid the renewal premium. However, the complainant needed money and thus on 17.9.2013 he approached opposite party No.1 for pre-mature surrender of the aforesaid policy. The complainant alleges that in the premature surrender request letter there is column of account number in which the customer/insured desires to get the proceeds of the pre-mature payment. On the said premature surrender request letter received by opposite party No.1 on 17.9.2013 Ex.C-3, complainant mentioned his saving bank account No. 02631000151181 maintained with opposite party No.2. But opposite party No.1 credited the amount of surrender value of the policy Rs. 33353.78 paise to the wrong bank account of the complainant bearing No. 02631000003572 which was lying dormant with opposite party No.2. Opposite party No. 2 deducted a sum of Rs. 4831.48 paise # Rs. 393.26 paise per month from September 2012 to August 2013 i.e. for 12 months with an additional entry of Rs. 112.36 paise. The complainant submitted that opposite party has wrongly credited amount in the account of the complainant not mentioned by the complainant and opposite party No.2 wrongly deducted Rs. 4831.48 paise from the premature policy surrender proceeds of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant
-6-
submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.1 is that in order to obtain the policy, the complainant filled in and signed the proposal form dated 19.3.2007 Ex.OP1/1 on the basis of which the policy was issued to the complainant. Not only this the complainant filled in and signed ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7 directing the opposite party that he shall pay the premium through his bank account No. 02631000003572 and the complainant was paying the premium through ECS mandate from the aforesaid account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank. The policy was taken by the complainant on 28.3.2007 and he paid premium upto 28.7.2010 for four years. Thereafter the complainant did not pay the premium despite the fact that opposite party issued notices to the complainant for the payment of the premium Ex.OP1/5. Resultantly the policy lapsed and opposite party No.1 intimated the complainant vide letter dated 22.1.2013 Ex.OP1/6 that the policy of the complainant stands foreclosed w.e.f 21.1.2013 due to non payment of premium and the revival period for reinstating the policy has ended on 28.10.2012 and an amount of Rs. 33,353.78 paise i.e. foreclosure value of the policy of the complainant is available with the opposite party and they requested the complainant to send requisite documents. But the complainant did not send any reply to this letter and resultantly the fund value of the policy Rs. 33,353.78 paise was
-7-
transferred by opposite party No.1 to the complainant's bank account with opposite party which the complainant has given in his ECS mandate on 5.9.2013, whereas the complainant has sent the form Ex.C-3 to the opposite party on 17.9.2013 in which the complainant has given another account number in opposite party No.2 bank. The opposite party had already transferred the amount of the foreclosure value of his policy in the account of the complainant which he had already given in ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7 on 5.9.2013 . So ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that the complainant has account with opposite party No.2 bank bearing No. 02631000003572 which became dormant on account of the fault of the complainant for not maintaining minimum amount. Opposite party No.2 bank has no liability if the credit amount was sent by opposite party No.1 i.e. Insurance company for the aforesaid amount of the complainant and opposite party No.2 was justified in deducting the amount of Rs. 48312.48 paise as charges in not maintaining the account properly. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got life Insurance Policy bearing No. 00630207 from opposite party No.1 on 28.3.2007. The premium payment term of the policy was 10 years . The
-8-
complainant has given mandate for payment of premium through ECS from his account No. 02631000003572. The said ECS mandate has been signed by the complainant which is Ex.OP1/7. The complainant paid premium of the aforesaid policy upto 2010.Thereafter he did not pay the premium of the aforesaid policy despite the fact that opposite party issued notices to the complainant Ex.OP1/5 and the policy lapsed. But inspite of that neither the complainant deposited the premium after 2010 nor he made any effort to get the policy renewed. Resultantly the policy stood foreclosed on 21.1.2013 and the complainant was informed vide letter Ex.OP1/6 dated 22.1.2013 that his policy stands foreclosed due to non payment of the premium and due to the fact that even the period for reinstating the policy has ended on 28.10.2012 , so the complainant was asked that the opposite party has amount of Rs. 33,353,78 paise as foreclosure amount of the policy of the complainant and requested the complainant to submit certain documents mentioned in the aforesaid letter Ex.OP1/6. But even then the complainant did not submit any document nor submitted any reply to the aforesaid letter Ex.OP1/6. So opposite party No.1 credited this amount of Rs. 33,353.78 paise in the account of the complainant with opposite party No. 2 bank bearing No. 02631000003572 which the complainant had given in his ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7 on 5.9.2013. Opposite party No.1 was,therefore, justified in crediting the aforesaid amount of the complainant in the aforesaid account given by the complainant himself with
-9-
opposite party No.2 bank as per ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7. When the opposite party No.1 has already credited this amount in the account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank on 5.9.2013, as mentioned by the complainant himself for ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7, the complainant submitted form with opposite party No.1 on 17.9.2013 Ex.C-3/OP1/8 that his aforesaid fund value of the policy be deposited in some other account number of the complainant i.e. 02631000151181 with opposite party No.2 bank. This request was received by opposite party No.1 from the complainant on 17.9.2013 when the opposite party No1 has already credited the aforesaid amount in the account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank, as mentioned by the complainant himself in his ECS mandate Ex.OP1/7. So we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
12. As the complainant did not maintain his account bearing No. 02631000003572 with opposite party No.2 bank properly i.e. he was not keeping minimum amount as per terms and conditions of the account with opposite party No.2 bank and the said account has become dormant and opposite party No.2 was justified in deducting the minimum charges for not maintaining the minimum amount in the aforesaid account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank.
13 Resultantly there is also no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
-10-
14. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby
dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
15. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
18.06.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
