Tamil Nadu

Tirunelveli

CC/107/2013

N.Rajagopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Sanmugam - Opp.Party(s)

Joberali

09 Feb 2015

ORDER

   Filed: 12-07-2013.

                                                                                       Disposed:09-02-2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM TIRUNELVELI.

Present: Thiru. M. Chinnapandi, B.A., B.L., President.

Thiru S.Balasubramonian, Member I.

Tmt.V. Jesintha, Member II.

                                                                                 (Monday the 9^th day of February 2015)

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.107/2013.

  

1. N.Rajagopal,

13-B, Kaikari Kadai Street,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli – 627 002.

2. The Tamil Nadu People’s Consumer Federation,

Tirunelveli – 2 through its

General Secretary,

14, Law Chambers,

District Court Complex,

Tirunelveli – 11.                                                                     ...Complainants.

                                     

                                                              ..Vs..

 

1. S.Shunmugam,

Development Officer,

National Insurance Company,

37-C, S.N. High Road,

Tirunelveli – 627 001.

2. S.Amalraj,

Senior Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company,

37-C, S.N. High Road,

Tirunelveli – 627 001.

3. S.P.R.Udayakumar,

Assistant Manager,

Regional Office,

National Insurance Company,

Trichy Road,

Coimbatore – 641 005.

4. G.Kannan,

Regional Manager,

National Insurance Company,

Trichy Road,

Coimbatore – 641 005.

5. P.Ravichandran,

Assistant Manager cum Central Public Information Officer,

Chennai Regional Office,

National Insurance Company,

190, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 6.

6. R.Andal,

Regional Manager,

National Insurance Company,

190, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 6.

7. V.M.Singh,

Deputy Manager (Customer Relationship –

Management Department),

National Insurance Company,

Chhabildas Towers,

6A, Middleton Street,

Kolkata – 700 071.

8. Sabita Das,

Deputy Manager (Customer Relationship –

Management Department),

National Insurance Company,

Chhabildas Towers,

6A, Middleton Street,

Kolkata – 700 071.

9. The Chairman and Managing Director,

National Insurance Company,

No.3, Middleton Street,

Kolkata – 700 071.                                                              …Opposite parties.

          This complaint came before us for final hearing on 5-1-2015 in the presence of complainants and Thiru.S.Sekar, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the opposite parties No.3 to 9 called absent and set exparte and having stood over till today for consideration this Forum made the following:

ORDER

Thiru.M.Chinnapandi, President.

 

                    1) The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the non-sending of renewal notice or non-furnishing of information as to the premium amount to renew the Sampoorna Suraksha Bima Insurance Policy amounts to deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled to compensation?

2. Whether it is obligatory on the part of the insurance company to send policy renewal notice?

                    2) Points 1 & 2: The complainant has taken Sampoorna Suraksha Bima Insurance Policy No.651200/48/11/3500000102 in the name of his wife in the year 2003 and it is a yearly policy tenable at the instants of the insured.  The insurance policy covers residential building against damages in natural calamities like earth quake for Rs.10,00,000/- and personal effects like gold jewels for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- besides other coverage like theft hospitalization and medi-claim each for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  The policy was renewed for about 8 years and it is due to expire on 6-6-2012.  Before the expiry of the period of policy the complainant said to have contacted Development Officer of the National Insurance Company to renew the policy but the Development Officer for the reasons known to him did not inform the premium amount and failed to send renewal notice and the contact of other higher officials of insurance company by electronic device is also of no effect and finally the 1^st opposite party informed him that the insurance company has no interest in the low premium insurance policy like Sampoorna Suraksha Bima Insurance Policy due to which the policy could not be renewed which causes loss to the complainant a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- which the opposite parties are found to compensate besides trauma and mental agony sustained by the complainant and his family members due to deficiency in service of the opposite parties and that opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation for expenses incurred by the complainant for sending telegram petitions etc., which he estimate them at Rs.50,000/-.

                    3) The main contention of the insurance company is that there is no obligatory on the part of the insurance company to send policy renewal notice yet it issues the same as customer service and that the complainant never approached the insurance officials in person to know about the premium amount payable on the policy and that when premium has not been paid and there was no refusal on the part of the policy issuing staff and for the fault of the complainant he cannot blame the insurance company therefore the insurance company is not responsible for the lapse of policy.  The further contention of the insurance company is that the 1^st opposite party has been sued in his personal capacity and he is not transacting business of the insurance company in his own name and the policy contract is between the insured and the insurer if any information was not furnished by the Development Officer the complainant can very well approach the higher officials to get information to renew the policy. Therefore for the lapse of policy no compensation can be claimed against the opposite parties.

                    4) The complainant appears in person submits that it is the development officer has rendered all assistance at the inception of the policy and he only furnished information regarding the premium amount payable to the policy and it was renewed periodically for about 8 years and when the policy was to expire on 6-6-2012 the Development Officer wantonly with held the information regarding the payment of premium payable on the policy as it is the vary from year to year and without information the premium could not be paid and that he sent number of letters and contact through electronic device asking the Development Officer to furnish the information but he ignored the letters and correspondences and he by his own act allowed the policy to lapse.  Therefore he should be asked to pay compensation with any amount at least as it would be a lesson to development officer to behave in such a way at least to the other customers like the complainant.  The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that if the development officer failed to furnish information as sought by the complainant he can very well approach the higher officials who are available in the next room of the development officer and could have easily obtained information for renewal of the Sampoorna Suraksha Bima Insurance Policy.   But the complainant argues that the Development Officer whose seat is at the entrance of the office will not allow any customer to meet the higher officials and that the development officer used to stop any customer going further from his seat and that he changed his attitude though initially canvas and represented the complainant to take the policy as it is more beneficial to him.  Therefore the non furnishing of information by the development officer is deficiency of service and though the complainant is filed in his personal capacity an award can be passed as the Forum deem fit as against him individually.  After considering the argument and pleading of the complainant it is a fit case to award compensation against the Development Officer and this Forum estimate the loss for deficiency of service on the part of the development officer is Rs.10,000/-.  The amount is quite reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. 

                    5) In view of the above discussion, it is decided that the development officer failed to disclose the information regarding the premium amount payable to renew the policy and the non disclosure of the information is the cause for the policy to lapse as such the development officer in his own capacity is liable to pay compensation and that his conduct and misuse of official position is deficiency of service, liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and the relief with regard to other opposite parties is refused and the points are answered accordingly.

                    6) In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for withholding of the information regarding the premium payable on the policy thereby caused the policy to lapse and the said amount is payable in eight 8 weeks failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till realization with cost of Rs.2,000/-.  The complaint is dismissed as against other opposite parties.    

                    Dictated to the Assistant, taken and typed by him and corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 9^th day of February 2015.

 

Member-I.                                      Member-II.                                  President.

 

Annexure

I) List of documents marked on the side of complainant:

1. Ex.A1/              : Copy of the Sampoorna Suraksha Bima Insurance Policy

2. Ex.A2/6-6-12   : Copy of the telegram sent by the complainant

3. Ex.A3/8-6-12   : Copy of letter sent by the complainant to 9^th opposite party

4. Ex.A4/24-7-12 : Copy of letter issued by SDE, customer service centre BSNL  

                                 Tirunelveli to the complainant  

5. Ex.A5/              : Copy of letter from the opposite party

6. Ex.A6/10-8-12 : Copy of letter sent to the opposite party by the complainant

7. Ex.A7/14-8-12 : Copy of letter sent to the complainant by the opposite party

8. Ex.A8/17-1-13 : Copy of letter to the opposite party by the complainant

9. Ex.A9/21-8-12 : Copy of RTI petition to the opposite party sent by the

                                 complainant

10. Ex.A10/3-9-12         : Copy of letter sent to the complainant by the opposite party

11. Ex.A11/                   : Copy of RTI petition to the opposite party by the complainant

                                  with copy of courier receipt

12. Ex.A12/                   : Copy of RTI petition to the Appellate opposite party by the

                                 complainant

13. Ex.A13/                   : Copy of letter sent to the complainant by the opposite party

14. Ex.A14/21-8-12: Copy of RTI letter to the opposite party by the complainant

15. Ex.A15/                   : Copy of letter to the complainant by the opposite party

16. Ex.A16/3-12-12: Copy of RTI letter to the opposite party by the complainant

17. Ex.A17/                   : Copy of RTI letter to the Appellate opposite party by the

                                 complainant

18. Ex.A18/                   : Copy of letter to the complainant by the opposite party

19. Ex.A19/                   : Copy of letter to the complainant by the opposite party

20. Ex.A20/24-8-12: Copy of letter sent to the complainant by the Insurance

                                  Ombudsman, Chennai

21. Ex.A21/12-11-13: Copy of letter to the complainant by the Insurance

                                     Regulatory and Development Authority

II) List of documents marked on the side of opposite parties: Nil.

   

                                              Member-I.                                      Member-II.                                  President.

 

 

16/2/15