BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.10 of 2015
Instituted On:04.02.2015
Decided On: 04.05.2015
Suresh Kumar Sood aged about 38 years son of Sh Krishan Kumar Sood resident of House No.181, Care of Sood Opticians, Opposite Shivala Sudan, Main Bazaar Moga.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Reliance General Insurance through Chief Manager, Register Office Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai. 400001.
2. Reliance General Insurance through Manager policy issuing Office: Reliance General Insurance Co. Limited., 570 Naigaon Cross Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (W) Mumbai-400031.
3. Reliance General Insurance through Manager policy servicing office 1st Floor property No.991, ward No.5, G.T.Road Near Bus Stand Opposite State Bank of Patiala, Moga, Punjab 142001.
……… Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //2//
Present: Sh.Arun Sood Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vishal Jain, Advocate counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Reliance General Insurance through Chief Manager, Register Office Reliance Centre, 19, Walchand Hira Chand Marg, Ballard Estate Mumbai. 400001 & others (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite parties’) directing them to reinstate the insurance policy besides Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, the complainant had purchased Health Insurance Policy bearing No.6042742825000020 from the opposite parties, which was valid w.e.f. 26.06.2014 to 25.06.2015 by paying premium Rs.2836/- through demand draft. It was the continuing policy because the complainant had been purchasing the medi claim policies from opposite parties since 26.06.2008 regularly. It has been alleged that the complainant received a notice of cancellation of the policy due to non realization of premium from the opposite parties as the cheque No.760860 dated 24.06.2014 for Rs.2836/- has been dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficient funds. But the complainant paid the premium amount through demand draft dated 24.06.2014 drawn on State Bank of India,
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //3//
Branch Ludhiana, which was got encashed by the opposite parties on 23.07.2014 from the bank having branch code 4328 at New Delhi. It has been further pleaded that as per rules and regulations of the banks, the demand draft can only be got issued after making its complete payment alongwith its exchange/surcharge amount and the same cannot be dishonoured. The complainant approached the opposite parties a number of times and requested them to re-check the account and papers and to re-instate the health insurance policy, but all in vain. Further it has been pleaded that complainant told the agent through whom he had purchased the insurance policy to get the necessary correction made, but to no effect. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel Sh.Vishal Jain Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that the complainant has not made the bank a party, which gave intimation to the opposite parties regarding bouncing of premium cheque; that the policy in question has already been re-instated from the date of its risk cover i.e. 26.06.2014 to 25.06.2015 subject to the terms and conditions of the policy; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //4//
the present complaint and that a complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. On merits, it has been pleaded that due to the mistake of bank of the complainant, the policy in question was cancelled as the opposite parties has not received any premium qua the policy. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence
his affidavit Ex.C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19 and closed his evidence.
5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered copy of policy Ex.OP1 to 3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant purchased family Health Insurance Policy bearing No.6042742825000020 from the opposite parties, which was valid w.e.f. 26.06.2014 to 25.06.2015 after paying premium of Rs.2836/- , copy whereof is Ex.O.P.Nos.1 to 3/1. It was a continuing policy as the complainant had been purchasing the medi claim insurance policies from opposite parties since 26.06.2008 regularly. The opposite parties issued notice of cancellation of the policy wrongly due to non realization of premium from the complaisant alleging that cheque No.760860 dated
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //5//
24.06.2014 for Rs.2836/- has been dishonoured by the bank of the complainant on account of insufficient funds, copy whereof is Ex.C-11. As a matter of fact, the complainant had paid the premium amount through demand draft dated 24.06.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Ludhiana, which was got encashed by the opposite parties on 23.07.2014 from the bank having branch code 4328 at New Delhi. Since demand draft can only be issued after making its complete payment as such the same cannot be dishonoured. No doubt during the pendency of the present complaint, the opposite parties have renewed the medi claim insurance policy in dispute. But, however, due to negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant had suffered mental and physical harassment besides economic loss. It is, therefore, contended that complainant may be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- besides allowing the costs of the present complaint.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently contended that needful has already been done in the instant case. It was on account of mistake that the answering party cancelled the medi-claim insurance policy in dispute. But, when the mistake came to light, the policy has been renewed without any delay. Instant complaint as framed is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled to grant any compensation and it is contended that the complaint may be dismissed.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.
10. There is no dispute that the complainant and his family was
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //6//
granted medi-claim insurance coverage w.e.f. 26.06.2014 to 25.06.2015. It has also come to light that the complainant had been purchasing the medi-claim insurance policy since the year 2008 continuously. There is evidence on record that the complainant paid premium for extending the medi-claim policy in dispute w.e.f. 26.06.2014 to 25.06.2015 after paying premium to the tune of Rs.2836/- vide demand draft drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Ludhiana. The premium amount was received by the opposite parties on 23.07.2014 through State Bank of India branch New Delhi. The opposite parties wrongly cancelled the insurance policy in dispute on the ground that premium amount of Rs. 2836/- allegedly paid vide cheque No. 760860 dated 24.06.2014 has been dishonoured by the banker of the complainant on account of “insufficient funds.” As a matter of fact, the insurance premium was paid by the complainant vide demand draft, which cannot be dishonoured. Since cancellation of the insurance policy in dispute has been wrongly made by the opposite parties and on that account the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment. No doubt the needful has been done during the pendency of the present complaint by the opposite parties by renewing the medi-claim insurance policy in dispute, but, however, the opposite parties by their act and conduct have compelled the complainant to file the instant complaint. Besides that the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such the complainant is legally entitled to be adequately compensated. Consequently, instant
C.C.No. 10 of 2015 //7//
complaint is ordered to be disposed off directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) as damages on account of mental and physical harassment besides Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two thousand only ) on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. The opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to pay the amount awarded within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:04.05.2015.
