STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Surinder Singh Bedi son of Late Sardar Sh.Arjun Singh Bedi, H.No.77, Phase-II, Mohali, Punjab.

…..Appellant.

                                V E R S U S

1]     M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., 9th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, Behind Everard Nagar Sion (E),Mumbai-400022 through its Manager.

2]     M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd., SCO No.141-142, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

……Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Present:  Sh.Ish Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

              Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. 

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.08.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now the appellant).

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took an Insurance Policy No.01707787, from the Opposite Parties, with date of commencement as 09.09.2009, against the annual premium of Rs.25,000/-. It was stated that the complainant never opted for opening of Electronic Clearance System (ECS) account with the Bank. It was further stated that, due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not deposit the second installment, which was due on 09.09.2010, and subsequently paid the same on 21.09.2010 through voucher No.70665637. It was further stated that the complainant was informed vide letter (Annexure C-3) that his bankers did not honour the payment from his account, on account of non-existent account. Consequently, the complainant wrote letter dated 29.09.2010(Annexure C-4) to the Deputy Chief Manger of the Bank, to know, as to why and how the necessity had arisen to issue the letter (Annexure C-3). The complainant also wrote letter dated 26.11.2010, to the Deputy Chief Manger, Policy Security of the Opposite Party, and sought information in respect of the failure of renewal premium collection through ECS to which the Opposite Parties failed to give any reply. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letter dated 03.01.2011 to the Assistant Secretary, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh for redressal of his grievance. It was further stated that the complainant wrote various letters, and sought information, under RTI, from the Opposite Parties, but they failed to redress his grievance. It was further stated that when the amount was deposited, in cash, there was no requirement of deducting the monthly charges, against the ECS transaction. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In the written reply, filed by the Opposite Parties, the fact, with regard to the issuance of the Insurance Policy, in question, against the annual premium of Rs.25000/- was admitted.  It was denied that the complainant never opted for the ECS facility. It was stated that the complainant had submitted the same alongwith the proposal form for payment of renewal premium. It was further stated that upon receipt of the ECS mandate and copy of the blank cancelled cheque No.08836 belonging to the IDBI bank, the Opposite Parties, approached the IDBI bank for necessary formalities for activation of the ECS facility, which informed them, that the account number mentioned on the cheque, was non-existent, and hence, the same could not be processed. It was admitted that the complainant paid the second premium, in cash, but it was stated that if the complainant wished to pay the premium for the remaining term of the policy, through cash, the same could be very well accepted. It was further stated that the deductions of charges were, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It was further stated that the grievance of the complainant was adequately addressed and the response was sent to the complainant, vide letter dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure R-2). It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant. 

7.                                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The grouse of the appellant, was that the respondents wrongly deducted the ECS charges, whereas, he never opted for this facility.  The Counsel for the respondents denied the same by emphasizing that the appellant had opted for this facility by submitting the ECS Mandate Form (Annexure R-1) alongwith proposal form(Annexure R-3) for payment of the premium and photograph to facilitate the payment of renewal premium.  This fact is further evident from (Annexure R-1 colly.) i.e. copy of the blank cancelled cheque no.008836 of the IDBI Bank Ltd. , which was cancelled on account of non-existent account, hence the same could not be processed.  It is, thus, proved from these documents, that the appellant had opted for the ECS facility, and the respondents, have rightly deducted the charges for the same, as per the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, is rejected.

9.                    It was proved that the appellant made the payment of second premium, through cash on 21.09.2010, which was duly accepted, by the respondents. During the course of arguments, the Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the third premium was paid by the appellant, during the pendency of appeal, and the Insurance Policy was still operative.  This fact was also not denied, by the Counsel for the respondents and, as such, the finding of the District Forum, regarding the lapse of the Insurance Policy, in question, is not sustainable in the eye of law, and the same is liable to be set aside.   

10.                 Since the Insurance Policy, is still operative and according to condition No.6 of the terms and conditions of same, the appellant is entitled to get the surrender value, if he opts for the same. However,  the prayer for refund of the total amount of premiums, paid by the appellant, alongwith up-to-date accrued benefits including interest, is not tenable as there is no provision, in the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, for the refund of the entire premium amounts. 

11.                 Since the appellant was himself, at fault, by not making the payment of premiums, on due dates, therefore, he is not entitled to damages and costs as prayed for.

12.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs, in the manner referred to above, and the order of the District Forum is set aside. We direct the respondents to make payment of the surrender value, to the appellant, if he opts for cancellation of the policy, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 

13.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

30.03.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-

                                                     [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg

APPEAL No.247   OF    2011

Argued by:  Sh.Ish Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

                         Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. 

                                   -.-

                        Alongwith the appeal, an application was moved by the appellant seeking permission to place on record, a copy of the letter dated 29.06.2011 written to the IDBI Bank and reply thereto dated 04.07.2011 (Annexures A-2 and A-3), by way of additional evidence.

2                      Copy of the same was supplied to the Counsel opposite.

3.                     The Counsel for the respondents submitted that he did not want to file reply to the same. He further submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record could not be admitted into evidence at the appellate stage.

4.                     Heard.

5.                     From the perusal of these documents, it is apparent that the same were in possession of the appellant, during the pendency of the complaint, before the District Forum.  However, the Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any plausible reason as to why these documents, were not placed before the District Forum, therefore, the same could not be admitted into evidence, now at the appellate stage. Accordingly, the application, for additional evidence is dismissed.

6.                     Vide our detailed order of the even date recorded separately, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs, and the order of the District Forum is set aside.

                                                            Sd/-                                        sd/-                

30.03.2012                            (MEMBER)                           (PRESIDENT)            

cmg