DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.
Complaint No. 202/14
Instituted on: 18.09.2014
Decided on: 09.03.2015
1. Jiwan Kumar son of Dharam Pal C/o M/s. Jiwan Silk Store, Sadar Bazar, Barnala, Tehsil and Distt. Barnala.
2. Renu Bala wife of Jiwan Kumar C/o M/s. Jiwan Silk Store, Sadar Bazar, Barnala , Tehsil and Distt. Barnala.
…Complainants.
Versus
National Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Parbhat Cinema, Sindhawani Marg, Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri R.K.Singla, Advocate.
For OP : Shri N.K.Singla, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Karnail Singh, Member
Vandna Sidhu, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Jiwan Kumar and Smt. Renu Bala, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainants purchased one Parivar mediclaim insurance policy for the period from 13.6.2009 to 12.7.2010 bearing number 404201/48/09//8500000024 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.8281/- and under the policy Jiwan Kumar, Renu Bala complainants and Kanchan Bala daughter and Sanjeev Kumar son of the complainants were also insured. Thereafter the policy in question was renewed by the OP for the period from 13.7.2010 o 12.7.2011 and due to the marriage of Kanchan Bala, her name was not included and by this way the complainant paid a premium of Rs.7335/-. Thereafter the said policy was again renewed by the OP for the period from 13.7.2011 to 12.7.2012 and premium of Rs.6389/- was charged. Thereafter Mr. Sanjeev Kumar crossed the age of 25 years, as such individual policy was issued to Sanjeev Kumar. Thereafter again the policy was got renewed for the period from 13.7.2012 to 12.7.2013 and the OP charged a premium of Rs.4820/-. Thereafter again the policy was renewed for the period from 13.7.2013 to 12.7.2014 by paying premium of Rs.4820/- demanded by the OP, but only the name of Jiwan Kumar was mentioned , when asked the OP about the non appearance of the name of Renu Bala, then the OP told that it does not matter, as it is a renewal of the policy. Thereafter the complainants again got the said policy renewed for the period from 13.7.2014 to 12.7.2015 and paid a premium of Rs.5039/- and the only name of Jiwan Kumar was mentioned on the policy and name of Renu Bala was not included in the policy since 13.7.2011. On this, the complainants approached the OP, but the OP did not gave any satisfactory answer and ultimately admitted that mistakenly the OP has not included the name of Renu Bala in the said policy. It is further averred that the complainants visited the office of the OP to add the name of Renu Bala in the said policy from 13.7.2011 and also asked to charge if any amount is due from them, but the OP told that nothing is due towards the complainants. The name of Renu Bala was not included despite best efforts of the complainants. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to correct the renewal of insurance policy by including the name of Renu Bala from 13.7.2011 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by Op, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainants have got no cause of action, lcous standi to file the present complaint, that the complainants have been estopped from filing the present complaint and that the complaint is frivolous and false one. On merits, it is admitted that the policy bearing number 404201/48/09/8500000024 was purchased by the complainant number 1 for the period from 13.7.2009 to 12.07.2010 for insuring himself, his wife, daughter Ms. Kanchan Bala and son Mr. Sanjeev Kumar. It is further admitted that the complainant also purchased a Parivar medical insurance policy bearing number 404201/48/12/8500000025 for the period from 13.7.2012 to 12.7.2013 for himself only in continuation of the previous policy by paying the requisite premium of Rs.4290/- plus service tax as per the premium schedule. It has been denied that the complainant ever approached the Op for correction or inclusion of name of Renu Bala or the OP ever insured the complainant for correction of the policy. It is further stated that the complainant number 1 also purchased a Parivar Mediclaim insurance policy number 404201/48/13/8500000025 for the period from 13.7.2013 to 12.7.2014 for himself only in continuation to the previous policy and paid a premium of Rs.4290/- plus service tax and the complainant number 2 never visited or approached the OP. It is further stated that the complainant number 1 also purchased a Parivar Mediclaim Insurance policy bearing number 404201/48/14/850000026 for the period from 13.7.2014 to 12.7.2015 for himself only in continuation to the previous insurance policy and paid a premium of Rs.4485/- plus service tax. It is denied that the OP ever admitted that the alleged mistake was on the part of the OP. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of insurance policies, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 copies of insurance policies and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of premium schedule, Ex.OP-2 affidavit of Randhir Singh and closed evidence.
4. We have perused the pleadings, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant number 1 is a consumer of the OP and can maintain the complaint very well.
6. In the present complaint, it is an admitted fact that the complainant got insured himself, his wife Renu Bala, his daughter Ms. Kanchan Bala and son Sanjeev Kumar by paying the requisite amount of premium as Rs.8281/-, for the period from 13.6.2009 to 12.6.2010 vide policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the copy of another cover note for the period from 13.7.2010 to 12.7.2011 showing that the insured persons were Jiwan Kumar, Renu Bala and Sanjeev Kumar and for that the OP charged a premium of Rs.7335/-.
7. In the present case the grievance of the complainants is that though the OPs have charged the premium for Renu Bala also, but wrongly and inadvertently her name has not been included/mentioned on the cover notes for the period 13.7.2011 to 12.7.2015 and thus the learned counsel for the complainants has contended vehemently that the OP number 1 be directed to mention/insert the name of Renu Bala on the same. But, the learned counsel for OP has contended vehemently that since the complainant number 1, Jiwan Kumar got insured himself only for the period from 13.7.2011 to 12.7.2015 and the premium for him has only been charged, as such since no premium has been charged for Smt. Renu Bala, complainant number 2, the question of inclusion of her name in the policy does not arise at all. The learned counsel for OP has further contended that premium of Rs.4290/- each has been charged only for Shri Jiwan Kumar (only upto the age of 50) and no premium has been charged for Smt. Renu Bala, complainant number 2. This fact is also evident from the copy of premium schedule, which is on record as Ex.OP-1. In the policy period 13.7.2014 to 12.7.2015, the OP has charged an amount of Rs.4485/- for the insurance of Shri Jiwan Kumar, as the rate for the age group of 51 years to 55 years, the rate of premium is Rs.4485/-, which is also evident from the copy of premium schedule Ex.OP-1. This fact is also supported by the affidavit of Shri Randhir Singh on record as Ex.OP2. Further the complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence to support his contention that the OP at any point of time assured that the name of the complainant number 2 Smt. Renu Bala was wrongly omitted to be printed on the insurance policies. Further the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that he ever approached the OP for getting the explanation to this effect. In these circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case by way of producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support his contention. On the other hand, the OP has clearly proved its case by producing on record the copy of premium schedule to show that the premium has been charged only for Shri Jiwan Kumar only. In the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
8. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 9, 2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
