DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.: 440 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   16.07.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   28.07.2011

1]          Krishan Lal Juneja son of Sh.Sant Ram Juneja, aged 72 years, R/o H.No.285, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

2]          Dr.Rajneesh Juneja s/o Sh.Krishan Lal Juneja,

3]          Dr.Gyatri Juneja W/o Sh.Ranjeesh Juneja,

          Both R/o H.No.285, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh,

          Through authority/attorney holder Sh.Krishan Lal Juneja.

                                                                                    ---Complainants.

V E R S U S

1]          Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.137-38, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2]          Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.2423, Sector 22, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

3]       Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune 411 006 through its General Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                   PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                  MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Jatin Kumar, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

Sh.Varun Chawla, Advocate for OP-3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             The instant complaint relates to a lis between the parties due to non-payment of interest on refunded premium against a cancelled insurance policy.

                The complainants had applied for a loan of Rs.60.00 lacs against property from OP-1.  When the loan was sanctioned, an insurance policy was issued by OP-3 against the loan and a premium amount of Rs.1,85,596/- was deducted from the account of the complainants.

                The policy was issued on 13.01.2009, and received by the complainant on 20.1.2009.  On receipt of policy, the complainant made a request for its cancellation on 20.1.2009 itself. The complainants have stated that the cancellation letter, which was addressed to OP-3 was also sent to OP-2.  Unfortunately, the OPs did not cancel the policy despite various requests and visits made by the complainants to their office. The complainants have thus filed the instant complaint with the request for refund of the premium amount along with interest  and compensation.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OPs NO.1 & 2 filed joint reply.  After taking some frivolous preliminary objections, OPs No.1 & 2, on merits, have admitted the sanction of loan of Rs.60.00 lacs to the complainants.  At the time of sanction and signing of loan agreement, the complainant himself had opted and given instructions to the Bank for purchase of an insurance policy (Ann.R-1).  OP-1 & 2 have denied receipt of request for cancellation of insurance policy.  In Para Nos.5 & 6 of reply, they have stated that the letter was addressed to OP No.3, while in Para Nos.7 & 8, they have admitted that they immediately acted upon the request of the complainants for cancellation of insurance policy and forwarded it to OP No.3 for refund of the amount by canceling the insurance policy. Denying all other allegations, OPs No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

                    OP-3 in their reply have also taken some frivolous preliminary objections.  They have submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part as the policy does not provide for payment of any interest.  On merits, they have denied, the loan taken by the complainants from OPs No.1 & 2 for want of knowledge.  They have contended that a perusal of authority letter dated 14.7.2010 shows that the Complainant No.1 had no authority to file any complaint against OP-3 as per authority letter at Ann.C-1. 

                As per facts, when Dr.Rajnish Juneja made a request through representatives of OPs No.1 & 2 for the issuance of a policy under the group insurance scheme, a certificate of insurance was issued to him on 13.1.2009.  OP-3 has denied the request of the complainant for cancellation of insurance policy as no such letter was ever received by them.  However, when they came to know about the intentions of the complainant to cancel the policy through an mail from Ops No.1 & 2 dated 20.10.2010, OP-3 immediately processed the request and refunded the amount to the complainant on 27.10.2010.  Denying all other allegations, OP-3 has said that after receipt of premium amount, the complainants are not entitled for any interests and compensation. OP-3 has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard Complainant No.1 and ld.Counsel for OPs and have also perused the record.

5]             The complainants at the time of sanctioning of loan had opted for an insurance policy to be issued by OP-3 through OPs No.1 & 2.  The first premium was duly paid.  However, when the policy was received, Complainant No.1 on the same date wrote to OP-3 to cancel the policy and refund the premium paid.  The complainant has said in his complainant as well as in his arguments that the letter was delivered to all OPs.  However, there is no proof on record that the letter was also endorsed to OPs No.1 & 2. All three OPs have denied the receipt of this letter.  But OP-3 has also said that the letter was sent by Complainant No.1 and not by Complainant No.2, who was the actual policyholder.

                No further communication, if any, exchanged between the parties inter-se have been placed on record by any of them.  It is thus clear that the communication between the partier is either verbal or ambiguous and hence not placed on record.

6]             OP-3 has very interestingly said in the reply that they allowed the cancellation of policy as a very special case and the amount deposited by the complainant was refunded’. 

Why was the case special ?

The amount was refunded on 27.10.2010.

What request for refund did they receive prior to this date ?

The complainant has placed request letter dated 20.12.2009 on record.

Why was the amount refunded after over 10 months.  It is an obvious case of deficiency in service and carelessness by OP No.3.

7]             In view of the above observations, we allow the complaint against OP-3 only. OP-3 is directed to pay interest on the refunded premium amount of Rs.1,85,596/- from 20.12.2009 till 27.10.2010 at the rate of 9% per annum.  OP-3 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service as well as cost of litigation.

                The above order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP-3 will pay the amount allowed above along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.07.2010 till the date of actual payment.

                However, the complaint qua OPs No.1 & 2 is dismissed as no deficiency is attributed to them.

                        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.  After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced

28.07.2011                                                                               

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER