Haryana

StateCommission

A/228/2020

CANARA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGDISH ANAND - Opp.Party(s)

PANCHAM SHARMA

01 Mar 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    228 of 2020

Date of Institution: 17.03.2020

Date of Decision:   01.03.2021

 

Canara Bank, New Grain Market Branch, Sector 3, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

Appellant-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Jagdish Anand son of Shri Chuni Lal Anand, resident of House No.16, Jarnaily Kothi, Opposite, Partap Public School, Karnal (Haryana).

 

 

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Shri Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

   

Present:     Shri Pancham Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

                    

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 T.P.S. MANN, J.

 

Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned for the reasons as specified in the miscellaneous application.

2.      The Canara Bank, New Grain Market Brach, Sector-3, Karnal-opposite party has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for challenging the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, whereby complaint preferred by Jagdish Anand-complainant was allowed and the opposite party directed to pay Rs.2,98,787/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization; Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him; and Rs.5,500/- for litigation expenses.

3.      According to the complainant, he is a partner of M/s Jagdish Anand & Sons and doing the business of Commission Agent under the name and style of M/s Jagdish Anand & Sons. He is maintaining his firm account in the name of M/s Jagdish Anand & Sons bearing account No.3161201000158 with the opposite party. The Branch Manager of the opposite party allured the complainant for issuance of health policy in his name and in the name of his family members by telling him that the Canara Bank in collaboration with an insurance company has started issuing the health policies in the name and style of Apollo Munich Health Insurance which would provide health coverage on a reasonable premium amount. On the assurance of the Manager of the opposite party, the complainant obtained two health policies from the opposite party, one in the name of his wife Anu Anand bearing policy ID No.10009357280 and policy No.120100/12001/2015/A004962/020 for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for the period 02.11.2015 to 01.11.2016 while second policy was obtained in his own name bearing policy ID No.10009348293, policy No.120100/12001/2015/A004962/017 for an amounting of Rs.5 lakhs for the period 04.11.2015 to 03.11.2016. At the time of taking the policies, instructions were given to the opposite party for auto deduction of the amount every year from the bank account of complainant maintained with the opposite party regarding both the policies and it was also instructed for auto renewal of policies every year by auto deducting the amount from the account of the complainant.

4.      The complainant further pleaded that  he suddenly fell seriously ill and obtained treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali and underwent by-pass surgery and spent a sum of Rs.2,98,787/- as per the bills, given by Fortis Hospital, Mohali whereas another amount of Rs.1 lakh was spent on transportation and follow up treatment.  He remained admit as indoor patient in Fortis Hospital, Mohali w.e.f. 04.01.2017 and discharged on 12.01.2017. After discharge, he approached the opposite party for claiming the amount against his health policy, which was obtained on 04.11.2015 with a direction of auto renewal by way of auto deduction of the amount from the account of complainant’s firm. After going through the record, the Branch Manager felt sorry and stated that in both the policies, there was an instruction of auto renewal by way of auto deduction of the amount of premium every year from the account of the complainant but the amount of premium for the period 04.11.2016 to 03.11.2017 was deducted regarding the health policy of Anu Anand but due to inadvertence/negligence, the amount of health policy in the name of Jagdish Anand had not been auto deducted from the account of the complainant’s firm. Therefore, the said health policy of the complainant could not be renewed for the period of 04.11.2016 to 03.11.2017.  As such, the insurance company was unable to pay any claim against the policy of the complainant. The complainant made a representation to opposite party and its higher authorities to pay the expenses of medical treatment because due to negligence of the opposite party, the policy could not be renewed but no action was taken and no claim paid against the health policy of the complainant. This act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint.

5.      Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the opposite party was a corporate body under Working Resolution Act and doing business of banking having its head office at Bangalore and among other branches one of the branch is situated at Grain Market, Karnal and the opposite party has only the account bearing No.3161201000158 of the complainant and the opposite party never adduced the complainant for issuance of health policy. It was denied that the complainant was given the instructions to the opposite party for auto deduction of the amount every year regarding the insurance policy from the bank account. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

6.      In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit       (Exhibit C1) and documents (Exhibit C2 to Exhibit C14), whereas, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit (Exhibit RW1/A) of Balbir Singh Brahmania, Branch Manager and documents (Exhibit R1 and Exhibit R2).

7.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.2,98,787/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum; Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,500/- for litigation expenses.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant should have been put to strict proof with regard to the instructions given by him to the bank for auto deduction of the premium amount of his policy from his account. The opposite party had deducted the premium amount of the policy belonging to the wife of the complainant from the same account. There were no instructions from the complainant to the opposite party to auto deduct the premium amount of his own policy. In fact the complainant had instructed only for auto deduction of the premium amount for the policy of his wife. Under these circumstances, the opposite party cannot be compelled to pay the amount of Rs.2,98,787/- spent by him for undergoing by-pass surgery at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. Prayer has accordingly been made for accepting the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and dismissal of the complaint.

9.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order, the State Commission finds that the complainant had purchased two policies, one for himself and another for his wife. As per account statement, an amount of Rs.4,565/- was deducted on 02.11.2015 by way of premium for the policy purchased by the complainant in the name of his wife Anu Anand and similarly on 04.11.2015, an amount of Rs.4,565/- was deducted as premium for the policy purchased in the name of the complainant from the account of the complainant. The opposite party has not denied that there was no collaboration of the opposite party with the insurance company. When the opposite party had auto deducted the premium amount of the insurance policy belonging to Anu Anand and the same was transferred to the account of insurance company, it was the duty of the insurance company to deduct the premium amount of the policy of the complainant as well. The opposite party has not come up with the plea that there were insufficient funds in the account of the complainant and if that be the position, the opposite party was under a duty to deduct the premium amount from the bank account of the complainant towards the insurance policy standing in the name of the complainant.

10.    There is documentary evidence on the record from which it is made out that the complainant had spent Rs.2,98,787/- for his treatment. On account of the opposite party having not sent the premium amount to the insurance company, this act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and thus no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the District Forum.

11.    Resultantly, the appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification subject to appeal/revision, if any, but in accordance with law.

 

 

Announced 01.03.2021

(Harnam Singh Thakur) Judicial Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

D.R.