OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.352 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-III HYDERABAD

Between

Satya Narayana Rangaraju @ Satish Kumar
R/o Block No.25, Flat No.1, HIG-II, APHB
Baghlingampally, Hyderabad

                                                                Appellant/complainant

        A N D

1.     M/s TATA (AIG) General Insurance Company
        rep. by Managing Director

2.     Sri Shastri Sagar, Vice President (Operation)
3.     Sri Dalip Varma, Authorised, Signatory of the policy

        Officer of TATA(AIG) General Insurance Company
        Ahura Center, 4^th Floor, Mahakali Caves Road
        Andheri (E)

        Regd.Office Bombay House, 24^th Homi Street
        Mumbai

                                                        Respondent/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant             Sri R.Gopal Kishan Rao

Counsel for the Respondent          Sri M.A.Khader

 QUORUM:          

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                TUESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                            ***

1.     The complainant is the appellant.

2.     The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the complainant was a holder of Maha Rakshma Personal Injury Policy issued by the opposite parties vide policy bearing No.MP02000001897 for one year from 16.8.2004 to 15.8.2005.  During the validity of the policy, the complainant met with an accident and sustained injuries and was hospitalized for 13 days.  The complainant after discharge from the hospital made claim with the opposite party no.1 which was repudiated by it.  The complainant approached the District Forum and the District Forum passed the orders directing the opposite parties to pay the claim.  The opposite parties complied with the order.  While so, during the pendency of the case the opposite parties sent a letter dated 3.7.2005 for renewal of the existing policy along with acceptance form-I.  The complainant neither accepted the proposal for renewal of the policy nor did send the accepted form-1 to the opposite party.  The opposite parties renewed the existing policy without the consent of the complainant for further period of one year.  The opposite parties drawn the premiums without the consent and knowledge of the complainant from ICICI Bank Credit Card amount utilizing the code number which was given earlier for previous policy.  The complainant came to know the same by the statement of the ICICI Bank wherein an amount of `711/- per month for one year upto August 2006 was drawn by the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties for refund of `11,696/- with interest, compensation and costs.

3.     The opposite parties remained set exparte.

4.     The complainant filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A9.

5.     The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay `8532/- being the amount which was debited into the complainant’s account. 

6.     Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum whereby an amount of `8532/- was directed to be refunded to him, the complainant has filed the appeal contending that his keeping silence on the aspect of the renewal of the insurance policy in the month of August 2005 by itself is not a cause or reason to disallow his claim by the District Forum.  It was submitted that the opposite party debited an amount of `3164/- from his account for which the complainant has taken steps by getting issued notice before filing the complaint before the District Forum.  It was contended that the District forum has ignored the offer made by the opposite parties during the pendency of the case that the opposite parties were ready to refund Rs.8532/- plus `2000/- plus `2000/- to the complainant.

7.     The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount of `11,696/- with interest and `5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides an amount of `2,000/- towards costs?

8.     The complainant obtained Maha Rakshma Personal Injury Policy bearing No.MP02000001897 for a period of one year commencing from 16.8.2004 to 15.8.2005.  it is not disputed that during the period the policy was in force the complainant met with an accident and claimed for reimbursement of the amount stated to have been incurred by him in regard to the expenses for his treatment.  The complainant’s claim was repudiated by the opposite party resulting the complainant filing the case No.724 of 2005. 

9.     It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that during the pendency of the complaint C.C.No.724 of 2005, the opposite party had requested by its letter dated 3.7.2005 for renewal of the insurance policy and despite the fact that he did not give his acceptance thereto, the opposite party issued letter  dated 28.8.2005 informing him that the insurance policy was renewed for a further period of one year therefrom.

10.    It is not in dispute that the opposite party has renewed the insurance policy by utilizing the code no. of ICICI bank credit card pertaining to the complainant which was furnished to the opposite part at the time of obtaining the insurance policy dated 16.8.2004.  It is stated that the insurance policy was renewed without the consent of the complainant and his credit card was utilized without bringing it to the knowledge of the complainant.

11.    The complainant contends that he came to know after one year about debiting of `711/- per month for a period of 12 months beginning from the month of August 2005 till the month of August 2006, only by the statement of credit card account sent to him by ICICI bank.

12.    The District Forum has opined that utilizing the credit account number of the complainant by the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and the silence maintained by the complainant with an intention to take advantage of the benefits of the insurance policy as is manifest by his notice to the opposite parties that was issued only after the expiry of the renewed insurance policy does indicate lack of bonafides of the complainant and that the complainant has admitted to take undue advantage of the act of the opposite parties.

13.    The conduct of the opposite parties in utilizing the proceeds of the credit card pertaining to the complainant whereby a sum of Rs.711/- was debited from the account of the complainant commencing from the month of August 2005 ranging over a period of one year and culminating during the month of August 2006 does not meet the normal business standard.  It is difficult to accept the contention of the complainant that he was unaware of the deduction of Rs.711/- per month for a period of one year until the statement of account was issued by ICICI Bank to him.  The pointer of suspicion as to the conduct of the complainant cannot be made a basis for arriving at the conclusion that the unfair trade practice being adopted by the opposite parties for the purpose of renewal of the insurance policy. The opposite party no1 insurance company being a company is not supposed to take undue advantage of the complainant’s silence over the renewal of insurance policy as the issue of renewal of the insurance policy is matter of right and liability of the opposite party no.1 and the complainant as well.  The opposite party no.1 is not expected to misuse the trust reposed in it by the complainant at the time of obtaining the first insurance policy as also his confidence in furnishing of his credit card account number and PIN as well.  The complainant claims Rs.11,696/- which according to him includes the interest on the amount of Rs.8,532/- deducted from his credit card account by the oppose parties towards the premium for renewal of the insurance policy.  It is also a fact which cannot be ignored that the complainant had conveniently kept quite for the whole year without raising any protest and only after the expiry of the renewed insurance policy he had come up with the theory of deduction of the amount by the oppose parties from his account without there being any permission from him.  We do not find any infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum that the amount of Rs.8532/- deducted towards the premium is liable to be refunded. 

        In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 7.9.2007 of the District Forum.  No costs.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                                Dt.09.11.2010

KMK*