BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.114 of 2018.
Date of institution: 25.04.2018.
Date of decision:03.06.2019.
Balwinder Kaur Wd/o Mewa Singh S/o Sh.Iqbal Singh, R/o Village Ladana Chakku, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Cheeka, Distt. Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
- Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce, Life Insurance Company Ltd. (IRDI Reg. No.136), 2th floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sotha Road, Gurgaon-122018.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Sumit Jaglan, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the husband of complainant had an account No.00522193000150 in the Op No.1-bank. It is alleged that at the time of opening of the account in the Op No.1-bank, a form was filled-up by the bank regarding the opening of life insurance cover by the Op No.2. After fulfilling all the requirements, a policy No.0033591412 dt. 04.07.2011 was issued in the name of husband of complainant in the year 2011. It is further alleged that the total insurance amount after the maturity and during natural death is Rs.10 lacs and in case of accidental death, the amount is Rs.20 lacs and premium for that policy was Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. It is further alleged that the premium amount was to be paid by auto debt terms and there was no need to got to the Op No.2 to deposit the premium amount. On 11.06.2016 the husband of complainant died in a road-side accident and an FIR bearing No.187 dt. 11.10.2016 was lodged in P.S.Guhla. The complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.2 but the Op No.2 paid only Rs.4,77,514/- on the ground that the policy was discontinued w.e.f. 06.10.2016 illegally and arbitrarily. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op because the answering Op has absolutely no concern with the policy of LA and its payment thereof. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections that due to non-payment of renewal premium for the year 2016, the policy in question was discontinued in accordance with the Clause 4.1.1 of the terms of the policy documents. As per clause 4.1.1, “In case of death of the life assured while the policy is in a discontinued state, the Fund value in the unit account of the Policy holder held in shall continue the Discontinued Policy Fund as on the date of registration of death claim by the company shall be paid to the Claimant and the Policy shall terminate immediately on such payment”. The answering Op has paid Rs.4,77,544.14 paise as the full and final payment of the claim of DLA. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Mark-CA to Mark-CC and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R9 & Annexure-R10, Op No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, there is no dispute that the husband of complainant had an account No.00522193000150 in the Op No.1-bank. It is also not disputed that a policy No.0033591412 dt. 04.07.2011 was issued in the name of husband of complainant in the year 2011. It is also not disputed that the husband of complainant died on 11.06.2016 and an FIR No.187 dt. 11.10.2016 was lodged in P.S.Guhla. The grievance of the complainant is that the Op No.2 paid the amount of Rs.4,77,514/- only, whereas the complainant was entitled to the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. He further contended that the premium was to be paid by auto debit terms and there was no need to deposit the premium amount by the complainant with the Op No.2.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.2 contended that due to non-payment of renewal premium for the year 2016, the policy in question was discontinued in accordance with the Clause 4.1.1 of the terms of the policy documents. He further contended that the Op No.2 has paid Rs.4,77,544.14 paise as the full and final payment of the claim of DLA to the complainant.
7. We have perused the case file and on perusal of proposal form Annexure-R1, it is clear that the premium amount of policy was Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and mode of renewal premium amount was as cheque/demand draft. It is also clear from the said proposal form Annexure-R1 that in the column of Preference for Renewal Premium payment, it is mentioned as “Cheque/Demand Draft” and the DLA namely Mewa Singh has also put his signatures on the said proposal form Annexure-R1. Moreover, to clarify whether the complainant has paid the premium through demand draft or auto cut, we have also summoned the record from the Oriental Bank of Commerce and they have produced the mode of payment of the premium for the year 2014, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid through transfer voucher duly filled-up by the DLA on dt. 22.10.2014 to the insurance company in lieu of the policy No.0033591412 in question. So, the contention of complainant that the premium amount was to be paid by auto debit terms has no force. It is proved on the file that the due premiums were paid till 2015 and in the year 2016 the policy went into discontinuance due to non-payment of premium due on 06.07.2016 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. We have perused the document Annexure R5 wherein it is clear that the Op No.2 also issued premium discontinuance notice to the complainant. So, it is proved on file that due to non-payment of renewal premium for the year 2016, the policy in question was discontinued in accordance with the Clause 4.1.1 of the terms of policy documents and thereafter, the Op No.2 has paid Rs.4,77,544.14 paise as full and final payment of the claim of DLA to the complainant. Hence, this Forum is of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:03.06.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
