Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party is a banking company and had issued a credit card to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had authorized the Opposite Party – Bank; to pay insurance premium in respect of insurance scheme proposed by the Opposite Party – Bank. It was known as ‘Suraksha Credit Shield’. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party – Bank; never informed the Complainant with whom the Opposite Party – Bank; had taken insurance policy and had not issued cover note to the Complainant and had not furnished details of the said insurance policy. However, the Opposite Party – Bank; continued to collect premium from the Complainant. The Complainant met with an accident and was hospitalized for which, he had to spend an amount in sum of Rs.73,073/-. On account of absence of details of the insurance policy, the Complainant could not submit his insurance claim regarding that medical treatment. Making allegations of indulging in an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; the Complainant has sought direction, as against the Opposite Party – Bank; to pay him compensation in sum of Rs.73,073/- towards reimbursement of hospitalization charges, which the Complainant had to incur. [2] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party – Bank; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and submitted that pursuant to the application submitted by the Complainant, a credit card was issued to the Complainant and by way of an additional service, the Opposite Party – Bank; had agreed to pay insurance premium to ‘Tata-AIG’ Insurance Company Ltd., under the insurance scheme namely – ‘Suraksha Personal Accident Policy’. According to the Opposite Party – Bank; cover note and insurance policy was issued by ‘Tata-AIG’ Insurance Company Ltd., and not by the Opposite Party – Bank. Thus, the Opposite Party – Bank; had denied its liability to reimburse expenses of medical treatment incurred by the Complainant. [3] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version of defence filed by the Opposite Party – Bank. Parties to the complaint proceeding also filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant documents. [4] We have heard the learned advocates representing the parties to the complaint proceeding. [5] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. [6] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover compensation from the Opposite Party – Bank? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [7] The Complainant has produced on the record copies of the statements issued by the Opposite Party – Bank; and entries therein reveal that the Complainant had paid insurance premium of ‘Suraksha Credit Shield’ through the Opposite Party – Bank. It does not appear from the entries in the statement that the Opposite Party – Bank; had issued the insurance policy. The Opposite Party – Bank; in its written version of defence, has made it clear that the Opposite Party – Bank; used to pay insurance premium to ‘Tata-AIG Insurance Company Ltd.’. The Opposite Party – Bank; is a banking company and not an insurance company. Naturally, as stated by the Opposite Party – Bank; insurance policy must have been issued by ‘Tata-AIG Insurance Company Ltd’. Be it noted that in the complaint as filed, the Complainant has not impleaded ‘Tata-AIG Insurance Company Ltd.’, as a party Opponent alongwith the Opposite Party – Bank. Being bankers of the Complainant, the Opposite Party – Bank; had undertaken to render service to the Complainant to pay the insurance premium. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be inferred that the Opposite Party – Bank; itself had issued the insurance policy and was liable to produce cover note or documents of the insurance policy. There is no material on the record to show that at any time before the accident or even after the accident, the Complainant had sought details of his insurance policy from the Opposite Party – Bank. Viewed from any angle, we fail to find out any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; vis-à-vis the insurance policy. We, therefore, find that there is no substance in the complaint and it deserves to be dismissed. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
