DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member<br /> Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member<br /> <br /> C.C.No.81/2006<br /> <br /> Dr.K.R.Mohandas,<br /> S/o.Late K.Raghavan,<br /> Sammohanam,<br /> Vrindavan Street,<br /> Town Hill Road,<br /> Palakkad. - Complainant<br /> (By Adv.Ranjith Unni)<br /> Vs<br /> <br /> National Insurance Company Ltd.<br /> 3rd Floor, East Fort Complex,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party<br /> (By Adv.A.R.V. Sankar)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Smt.Seena.H, President<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant and his wife availed a Medi claim insurance policy for the year 2006-07 from the opposite party. Premium was paid by way of cheque No.341073 dt.9.3.2006 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Palakkad for an amount of Rs.4,325/-. Thereafter complainant was issued with a policy schedule. On 3.4.2006 opposite party issued a letter to the complainant informing that his policy stands cancelled from inception as the cheque was dishonoured. When contacted with his bank State Bank of Travancore, it was informed that cheque in question was asked to be presented again by the bankers of the opposite party on account of some technicalities in settlement of accounts. Complainant was aggrieved by the act of opposite party in not presenting the cheque again and not informing him before cancellation of the policy. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint. <br /> <br /> Notice was served on the opposite party. Version filed. <br /> <br /> Opposite party admits the receipt of the cheque from the complainant for payment of the premium. The said cheque was presented through their bankers, Canara Bank and the same was dishonured with remarks “effects not cleared, present again” addressed to Canara Bank and not to <br /> <br /> the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party is that complaint is bad for non-joinder as the opposite party's bank is not impleaded in the party array. According to the opposite party it is the bounden duty of the complainant to maintain sufficient balance in the account. On receipt of the dishonour intimation on 3.4.2006 itself the dishonour of cheque and cancellation of policy has been informed to the complainant through registered letter. The cancellation of policy was after application of mind and as per the laws laid down in the insurance contract. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> The evidence adduced consists of proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 and proof affidavit on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> The issues for consideration are;<br /> 1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party?<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 3. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> Issue No.1:<br /> The contention of the opposite party is that cheque was presented through their banker Canara Bank and the same was dishonoured by the complainant's bank with remarks as 'effects not cleared; present again” addressed to Canara Bank and not to the opposite party. In revision petition United Commercial Bank Vs. Smt.Anitha Airan and Others and National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt.Anita Airan and Others, 1986-2004 Consumer cases 7511(NS), Hon'ble National Commission has held that the insurance company can be made liable even if the fault is on the part of their bank as the bank acted as the agent of the company. In the light of the above decision, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> Issue No.2<br /> As per the complainant, the act of the opposite party in not presenting the cheque again, there by resulting in cencellation of policy and not informing him about the dishonouring of the cheque before cancellation amounts to deficiency of service. The contention of the opposite party that the dishonouring of the cheque with remarks”effects not cleared; present again” was addressed to their bankers, Canara Bank and not to the opposite party cannot be accepted for the reason, bank being acting as an agent of the opposite party company. Further as contented by the opposite party cheque was not dishonoured for insufficient funds. If that be so, default can be on the part of the complainant. But in this particular case, the cheque has been dishonoured for no fault on the part of the complainant. The deposition of PW1 also go on to shows that 'effects not <br /> <br /> cleared; present again' does not mean insufficient funds. Ext.A2 statement of accounts clearly reveals the fact that on the day of presentation of the cheque there was sufficient fund in the account of the complainant. The insurance company ought to have presented it again.<br /> <br /> It is admitted by the opposite party and is evident from Ext.B3 that a letter has been issued to the complainant intimating the fact of dishonouring of the cheque and subsequent cancellation of the policy on the same day on which the intimation of dishonouring was received by the opposite party. No intimation was given to the complainant before cancellation of the policy.<br /> <br /> 'Deficiency' as defined in Section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act means “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. In view of the above discussions, we hold the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> Issue No.3<br /> we do not think it proper to revive the policy as prayed for by the complainant. We hold the view that compensation of Rs.4,000/- would meet the end of justice.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceeding within one month from the date of communication of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest of 9% from the date of order till realisation.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of November, 2008 <br /> Sd/-<br /> Seena.H <br /> President<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Preetha.G.Nair<br /> Member<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Bhanumathi.A.K<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> Appendix<br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant <br /> Ext.A1 – Return register (subject to proof)<br /> Ext.A2 – Statement of SB A/c of the complainant <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party <br /> Ext.B1 - Policy<br /> Ext.B2 – Memo of cheque return<br /> Ext.B3 – Regd notice regarding cancellation of policy<br /> Costs (allowed)<br /> Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost.