The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had taken a policy being LIC’s  premium endowment plan (with profits) vide Policy No.445146776 with effect from 28.01.15 and sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/-. The instalment of premium was Rs.4186/- monthly. The complainant being physiotherapist by profession is very much busy throughout  the entire day, as such, the complainant had opted for Electronic Clearance Service (ECS) method for payment of premium with an expectation to keep insurance policy intact, so that it does not lapse for default of payment of premium. As per ECS facility the premium is deducted by Bank and remitted to the LIC. To avail of ECS facility, policyholder submits mandate form to LIC and thereby authorise bank to deduct the premium. Accordingly, bank deduct premium on the basis of the invoice receipt from the LIC. The complainant submitted one time standing instruction in the form of ECS mandate to the OP No.2 instructing the OP No.2 to debit the  complainant’s account No.1036104000002295 monthly and monthly instalment premium of the policy Rs.4186/- as per demand  sent by the OP No-1.  The complainant had submitted ECS mandate form duly verified and certified by the OP No.2 to the OP No.1 which was duly acknowledged by OP No.1 but it was surprised that the complainant came to know that monthly premium to be due on 28.02.15 was not debited from the complainant’s bank Account No.1036104000002295 mandate with OP No-2. Finding no other alternative the complainant on 27.03.15 paid the premium in cash of Rs.8403/- being outstanding premium due on 28.02.15 with fine and the premium due on 28.03.15. However, premium due on 28.04.15 was duly debited from the complainant’s bank account but for the premium of next month i.e. 28.05.15 was again not deducted from his account and on 02.06.15 when he received a letter from OP No.1 came to know that ECS invoice sent by OP No.1 for deduction of premium on 28.05.15 has been dishonoured by OP No-2. As the complainant’s account number was wrongly quoted as 103610400000299 instead of  1036104000002995 and the reason assigned for the dishonour was mandate not received by Bank. For the above act of the OP No.1 the complainant has suffered prolong harassment, mental agony, financial loss, injury and hardship. Finally, due to uncertainty of the collection of premium by ECS facility and insufficient response from OP No.1 and OP No.2 the complainant was compelled to withdrawn/closed the aforesaid policy.  The complainant made a RTI application dated 21.08.15 and in reply the CPIO of the LIC informed through letter No. KMDO-I/CRM/RTI/07/08-2015 dated 24.09.15 informed that OP No.1 raised the invoice for particular settlement for debit collection and present it to the RBI through their Nodal Bank and in return the RBI sent this invoices to respective bank’s ECS service centre for collection but invoice sent to RBI for debit settlement dated 28.02.15 and debit settlement dated 28.05.15 were returned for the reason 8 i.e. ECS Mandate not received from the customer and in all the three invoices were raised by the OP No.1 wherein the complainant’s account No.103610400000299 instead of 1036104000002995 and due to aforesaid negligent act of OP No.1 as well as OP No.2 ECS payment was dishonoured. Thus, it appears that the above act of the OP No.1 and 2 by communicating a wrong and incorrect information regarding Savings Bank Account number, rendering the policy inoperative.  The complainant also served legal notice dated 19.11.15 upon the OP No.1 which was duly received by the OP No.1 but OP No.1 did not reply and thereby OP No.1 committed deficiency in service. The act of the OPs such as negligence by sending a wrong number and thereby compelling the complainant to withdraw/close the policy has deliberately committed deficiency in service for which complainant was  bound to file this case with prayer to pass order directing OPs to pay compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- for his harassment, mental agony, financial loss, injury and hardship with 18% interest per annum with effect from 29.04.15 and litigation expenses of Rs.45,000/-.

After registering the case notices were issued to all the OPs which were duly received by both the parties. OP No.1 contested the case by filing written statement  and thereby submitted its evidence and argued in his case. Whereas, OP No.2 remain absent without submitting written statement as well as evidence for which the case proceeded  exparte against OP No.20 but, subsequently OP No.2 submitted written argument.

OP No.1 in his written statement stated inter-alia that case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. OP No-1 admitted to the extent that the complainant opened a policy but subsequently due to some anomalies the payment of the premium through ECS system from the Bank failed due to some technical problem. Further, it is stated that as per terms of the ECS facility, if mandate is dishonoured the premium is to be paid at cash counter of any Branch either in cash or by Demand Draft with dishonour charge interest due for late payment etc. The premium due on 28.04.15 of the policy No.445146776 was duly debited from the complainant’s bank account No.1036104000002295 but the ECS invoice dated 28.05.15 for the month of May was dishonoured for the reason “mandate not received by bank”. OP No.1 provided all the information about dishonour of above premium as well as other information as sought by the complainant on various dates in this regard. The IRDA complaint No.1516038792 dated 14.09.15 lodged by the complainant replied by the OP No.1 on 16.09.15. The IRDA complaint No.1516034192 dated 12.08.15 lodged by the complainant was replied by the OP No.1 on 31.08.15. Information sought under RTI Act,2005, application dated 15.06.15 all the information provided by the OP No.1 on 23.07.15 vide registered letter No.JDO/CRM/RTI, Speed Post No.ES00727455IN. Information sought under RTI Act,2005, application dated 21.08.15 information provided by Divisional Officer, Kolkata-1 of OP No.1 on 24.09.15 vide letter No. KMDO I/CRM/RTI/07/08-2015 through Speed Post. The OP No.1 had also replied the legal notice served on 19.11.15 by Sri Saptarshi Paul, Advocate in this regard. The reply letter No.JDO/L & HPF/Legal Notice/2015-2016 dated 23.12.15 was sent accordingly. The OP further stated that the incident of withdrawal/ close of the aforesaid policy was not occurred due to insufficient response from OP No.1 or any lacuna or  deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, rather unfortunate happening was due to technical reason of ECS payment in between the system of OP No.1 and OP No.2. The invoice sent to the RBI for debit settlement dated 28.02.15 and debit settlement dated 28.05.15 were returned for the reason 8 i.e. ECS mandate not received from the customer and invoices the complainant’s Bank Account No. are appearing as 103610400000229. The OP No.1 left no stone unturned to satisfy the complainant but the ECS mandate of the complainant did not function for technical reason in between OP No.1 and OP No.2 which is beyond the ordinary control of OP No.1 for which the valuable service of OP No.1 shall not be liable of deficiency in service. The OP No.1 further stated that the terms and condition through ECS facility which are enclosed with ECS mandate form, LIC will not be responsible for any dishonour raised by the Bank or whatever reason of any dispute regarding dishonour should be taken up with the Bank only. So far the policy No.445146776 is concerned the complainant returned the original policy documents with a demand to get back his premium amount already paid and accordingly the OP No.1 released the said premium amount already paid by the Bank on 07.09.15. As such, the OP No.1 is not liable for any compensation since there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No-1. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the case against OP No-1.

In this case complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as  7 (seven) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP No.1 examined Sri Joydeep Dutta, Branch Manager, LICI, Dibrugarh Branch as DW-1 and exhibited as many as 4 (four) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

Complainant, OP No.1 and subsequently, OP No.2 also submitted their written argument.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :-

Upon going  through the evidence including documentary evidence and written argument advanced by the parties it is found that the complainant had obtained a policy being Policy No.445146776 w.e.f. 28.01.15 and the sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/-. The instalment of premium to be paid Rs.4186/- per month. For the payment of the premium the complainant opted for Electronic Clearance Service method i.e. ECS in order to protect the policy from getting lapse. As per ECS facility the premium is deducted by bank and remitted to the LIC. As such, complainant submitted one time standing instruction in the form of ECS mandate to OP No.2 instructing the OP No.2 to debit from his savings account number for payment of instalment of the premium as per demand sent by OP No-1. So far the above fact are concerned, the OPs have admitted and there is no dispute in this regard. But though ECS method payment was adopted by the complainant, complainant was surprised to know that his premium was not debited from his account number and had to pay alternatively in cash of Rs.8403/-for outstanding premium due on 28.02.15 and the premium due on 28.03.15. However, the premium due on 28.04.15 was duly debited from his account. But the premium for 28.05.15 was dishonoured by OP No.2 which was informed by OP No.1 bide letter dated 02.06.15 stating that ECS invoice sent by the OP No.1 for deduction of premium on 28.05.15 has been dishonoured by OP No-2.

From the perusal of the evidence of both the parties it appears that premium due on 28.02.15 was not debited from the complainant’s Bank account and subsequently the complainant on 27.03.15  paid the premium in cash of Rs.8403/- being outstanding premium due on 28.02.15 and 28.03.15. The premium due on 28.04.15 was duly debited from the complainant’s Bank’ account, but again the premium due for the month i.e. 28.05.15 was not deducted from the account of the complainant and was dishonoured for the same reason mandate not received by Bank. Whereas, OP No.1 submitted that invoice was duly sent to RBI for debit settlement dated 28.02.15 and 28.05.15 but those invoices were returned dishonoured. The complainant in his evidence stated that the ECS invoice sent by OP No.1 for deduction of premiums were dishonoured by OP No.2 due to wrong citing of Account No.103610400000229 instead of 1036104000002295. The complainant had to suffer prolong harassment and mental agony, financial loss, injury and hardship for the above act of the OP No-1. Due to uncertainty of the premium collection through ECS mandate and insufficient response from OP No.1 and OP No.2 the complainant was compelled to withdraw/close the aforesaid policy. No doubt the complainant suffered harassment, mental agony, financial loss and injury due to dishonour of invoice by the OP No.2 sent by OP No.1, and ultimately, he had to withdraw the policy. From the evidence of OP No.1 it also appears that the OP No.1 has released all the premium amount paid by the complainant on 07.09.15 on withdrawal of the policy.

       Now the question arises as to whether OP No.1 and 2 are to be held liable for compelling the complainant to withdraw/close of the Policy No.445146776 and thereby suffering harassment, mental agony and financial loss.

        In the written argument submitted by OP No.2 whereas he stated that he is not liable to pay any compensation as alleged as because they are to follow the mandate and the invoice submitted by the OP No-1 since ECS invoice was wrong and the account number was written wrongly i.e. 103610400000229 instead of 1036104000002295 for which electronic method did not accept the request for which the Electronic Clearance Service was dishonoured. It is the responsibility of every consumer who has accounts with the Bank is to furnish the correct account number of his account. The complainant through ECS mandate method direct the Bank to debit the premium from his account as per provision of ECS mandate the OP No.1 has to sent invoice for a particular settlement date for debit collection and present it to RBI through their Nodal Bank i.e. HDFC. In turn RBI sent these invoices to respective bank’s ECS service centre for collection from stipulated account on the settlement date. The Bank i.e. OP No.2 either remitted the amount by debiting the respective accounts or dishonour the mandate stating the reason as per RBI guidelines. Since, the OP No.1 has sent a wrong number, the amount could not be debited in the account of the complainant and was dishonoured stating the reason that mandate not received from the customer. Therefore, it appears that wrong committed by the OP No.1 by sending a wrong number of account which is due to gross negligence and carelessness of OP No-1. Therefore, OP No.2 is not liable to compensate for the negligence of OP No-1.

        From the evidence on record it appears that the complainant being a busy person and opted for Electronic Clearance Service (ECS) method for premium payment of the Policy No.445146776 with the expectation to keep the insurance intact so that it does not get lapse as such, the complainant availed ECS facility, policyholder submitted mandate form to LIC and also authorised bank to deduct the premium. The Bank deduct premium on the basis of invoice received from LIC. The complainant had also submitted one time standing instruction in the form of ECS mandate to the OP No.2 instructing the OP No.2 to debit from the complainant’s account number on the monthly basis as per demand sent by OP No-1. The complainant had also submitted ECS mandate form duly verified and certified by the OP No.2 to OP No-1. OP No-1 vide its letter dated 12.02.15 duly acknowledged the registration of ECS/direct debit facility of monthly premium of the aforesaid policy and OP No.2 also duly activated the complainant’s ECS facility  vide ECS Registration No.1036021500005 dated 27.02.15. The procedure of ECs method is that the LIC i.e. OP No.1 is to raise the invoice for the particular settlement date or every settlement date for debit collection and present it to RBI through their Nodal Bank i.e. HDFC Bank. In turn RBI sent this invoice to respective Bank’s ECS service centre i.e. Bank of OP No.2 for collection from stipulated account on the settlement date. After receiving the invoice the OP Bank either remitted the amount by debiting the respective account or dishonour the mandate stating the reason as per RBI guidelines and same is reported by RBI to the Nodal Bank providing process date and report-7. The LIC of India takes dishonour action as per report-7 and sent letter to policyholder.

           The OP No.1 tried to shift his liability simply by saying that the withdrawal/ close for the aforesaid policy was not occurred due to insufficiency from OP No.1 or any lacuna or deficiency in service rather unfortunate happening was due to technical reason of ECS payment in between the system of OP No.1 and OP No-2. OP No.1 in para- 6 of the written statement admitted that the invoice sent to RBI for debit settlement dated 28.02.15 and debit settlement dated 25.05.15 were returned and dishonoured for the reason ECS mandate not received from the customer. It is also admitted that in three invoices complainant’s Bank account number appearing as 103610400000229 whereas, the Bank account number of the complainant was 1036104000002295. Thus, it appears that in absence of the last digit i.e. 5 the electronic system did not accept the request for which OP No.2 dishonoured the invoice  sent to them on the ground of mandate not receive from customer.

          Under the above fact and circumstances, it appears clear that Bank OP No.2 deducts premium on the basis of invoice receive from LIC as per demand sent by the OP No-1 through online suggestion But since Bank account number itself is wrong the OP No.2 would naturally dishonour the invoice which the OP No.2 did. Under the circumstances, the whole occurrence was due to wrong account number mentioned in the invoice sent by OP No.1 due to their negligence and un-carefulness. Had the account numbers been mentioned correctly the OP Bank had honoured the invoice sent by OP No.1 and the complainant would have not to suffer harassment, mental agony and financial loss and compel to withdraw/close the policy. The complainant had to withdraw/close his policy due to the aforesaid negligent act of the OP No-1.

         From the above evidence on record it appears that the complainant has been able to disclose the material of committing serious negligence, deficiency in service and illegal trade practice by OP No.1 by issuing an invoice mentioning a wrong account number and thereby the invoice was dishonoured by OP No.2 and thereby gave mental harassment to the complainant. There are ample material in evidence to show that monthly premium of the policy in question was dishonoured regularly by issuing a wrong account number in the invoice to the Bank and the Bank had no other alternative but to dishonour the invoice. Accordingly, from the above evidence this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that some order can rightly be passed against OP No.1 directing OP No.1 to pay some amount as compensation by giving prolong harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered due to negligent act of the OP No.1 and thereby OP No.1 committed grave deficiency in serviced and illegal trade practice as because the complainant had to withdraw or close the policy. Further, this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that the OP No.2 was not held responsible and liable for wrong committed by OP No-1.

          In view of the conclusion arrived above this Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by OP No.1 by issuing invoice containing wrong account number repeatedly in three invoices and thereby giving unnecessary mental harassment, agony and financial loss to the complainant and compelled to close the policy. So the Forum directs OP No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for giving such mental harassment, agony and financial loss to the complainant by issuance of invoice with wrong account number. The Forum further direct OP No.1 to pay Rs.2000/- as cost of filing the instant case. OP No.1 is directed to pay the above amount through this Forum within one month from the date of this judgment.

      Send copy of this judgment to the OP No.1 for compliance.