DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.57/2018

Date of Institution: 19.02.2018

Judgment Reserved on: 01.12.2023

Judgment Passed on: 29.01.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant against OPs i.e. OP1 the National Insurance Co. for repudiating the claim, and against OP2 Standard Chartered Bank and against OP3 Andhra Bank for dishonouring the cheque of the premium payable to insurance company.
2. Before coming to the facts, it is a matter of record that this complaint case was filed by complainant on 19.02.2018 against three OPs i.e. National Insurance Co., Standard Chartered Bank and Andhra Bank but subsequently the complainant amended the complaint and filed amended complaint dated 28.05.2018 thereby deleting the name of Standard Chartered Bank and only keeping the National Insurance Co. as OP1 and Andhra Bank as OP2 and therefore the name of the parties is mentioned as per the amended memo of parties dated 28.05.2018.
3. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he has been regular policy holder of OP1 for last 10 years and for the current year also he paid premium of Rs.11230/- vide Cheque No.000145 dated 24.08.2017 for the policy which was effective from 01.09.2017 to 31.08.2018 being Policy No.361303501710001327. However on 23.09.2017 his son namely Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha got admitted in hospital where after he applied for cashless payment against the treatment but on 25.09.2017 the hospital informed him that his insurance policy has been cancelled by the OP1 and he had to bear the expenses. The complainant accordingly contacted the OP1 for clarification who informed the complainant that since Cheque No.000145 dated 24.08.2017 has been dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, the policy has been cancelled and he was advised to contact his bank. It is further stated that when he contacted OP2 who had wrongly reported with respect to dishonour of cheque of the complainant on account of insufficient funds as there was more than Rs.13,00,000/- in his account of Andhra Bank on that day, and there after the manager of OP2 provided him a letter dated 27.09.2017 thereby mentioning therein “the said instruments has come with the wrong cheque number/serial number 000142 instead of correct cheque number as 000145 because of which it get returned from our end. For wrong listing of cheque number/serial number customer may contact the presenting bank i.e. Standard Charted Bank “(since removed from the array of parties by complainant himself.)” The complainant thereafter demanded the claim by sending the Legal Notice to all the OPs but no response was received, and now he has filed the complaint stating that complainant had incurred the amount of Rs.59,529/- on the treatment of his son and he also claim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges Rs.21,000/-.
4. The OP1 has filed written statement inter-alia stating that there is no cause of action against OP1 as the policy amount had never reached the OP1 and policy stands automatically cancelled, if the premium is not paid and therefore it is specifically denied that complainant had valid medical policy on the date of medical treatment. All other facts are denied word by word.
5. OP2, Andhra Bank has also filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that complainant case against answering OP is not maintainable inter-alia on the grounds that the complaint is not in accordance with rules and law, there is no cause of action against OP2, the OP2 is not deficient in providing its services as the complainant had presented the cheque bearing No.000145 for Rs.11,230/- and then the insurance company presented the said cheque for clearance to its banker i.e. Standard Charted Bank who has sent the cheque number 000142 instead of cheque number 000145 for clearance and due to wrong decoding by the Standard Charted Bank the cheque in issue has been dishonoured and answering OP has acted only in accordance with rules and law of the banking institutions and therefore there cannot be any deficiency on the part of answering OP2 and it is prayed that claim of the complaint of the complainant against OP2 be dismissed.
6. The complainant has filed its own evidence by way of affidavit whereas OP1 has filed evidence of Shri Pratap Singh the Administrative Officer of the insurance company and OP2 has not filed any evidence. Written arguments have been filed by complainant as well as OP1.
7. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records and before appreciating the pleadings it is matter of record that complainant has not filed rejoinder to rebut the contentions of OP1 or of OP2. Admittedly the OP1 is not the recipient of the premium as the cheque given by the complainant to OP1 has not reached to the accounts of the OP1 and therefore since there is no premium paid to the insurance company, it cannot be held liable with respect to any deficiency of service qua complainant and in support of the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC titled Sagir Alam Vs, HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. decided on 28.06.2019 is para materia to the facts of complainant and para 10 of this judgment reads as follows:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra & Ors. Relevant paragraphs of this judgment being material are reproduced as under:-

“In a contract of insurance when an insurer gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a Bill of Exchange drawn on the specified banker. A Bill of Exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid.

Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonored by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance form the insurer in such a situation.”

Hence complaint of the complainant against OP1 is dismissed forthwith.

8. Now coming to the aspect as to whether there is any deficiency on the part of OP2. Although OP2 has not filed any evidence yet the complainant himself has filed the documents issued by OP2 stating that the advise which was received for encashment of cheque had a number of 000142 whereas the cheque was having number 000145 and therefore while matching the coding aspect the particulars didn’t match and as such as per normal practice the cheque got dishonoured and therefore there is no deficiency as far as OP2 is concerned. The complainant has not filed rejoinder to it. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency on part of OP2 as well.
9. Keeping in view the facts, the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has not been able to prove deficiency either on the part of OP1 or on the part of OP2. Complainant of the complaint is accordingly dismissed. 

Copy of this judgment to both parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.  

Announced on 29.01.2024.