DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Avinash Bansal R/o H. NO. 807/904, Street-Kallu Manak, Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  SBI Life Insurance through its Regional Manager, SCO No. 109-110, 3^rd floor, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.

2]  State Bank of Patiala through its DGM, State Bank of Patiala, RACP Zonal Officer, #99 to 107, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                  PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by: Ms. Anamika Mehra, Counsel for Complainant.

          Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Counsel for OP No.1.

          Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Counsel for OP No.2.      

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

        The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. Briefly stated, the complainant applied for loan of Rs.19,50,000/- from SBOP- OP-1 in January, 2010 together with Life Insurance policy by paying extra premium of Rs.27,841/-. The complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs.19,77,841/- on 14.1.2010 including loan amount & life insurance premium. The main averment of the complainant is that the OPs did not issue insurance policy to him rather OP-1 vide annexure C-8 charged excess amount of Rs.5,443/-. The complainant made several efforts to resolve the issue but nothing could be resulted in positive. Ultimately a legal notice dated 18.9.2010 was got served upon the OP but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.       The  OP No.1 in its reply,  pleaded that it has never received any proposal form/membership form for insurance cover from the complainant and also not received any premium amount. However, the complainant was intimated to submit the membership form and the details of remittance of premium for further process. But the complainant did not submit the same due to which the insurance cover could not be considered. Thus the negligence is itself on the part of the complainant. The OP No.1 further asserted that the complainant has not produced any proof of remittance of premium and submission of proposal form. The OP No.1 vehemently denied of charging Rs.5443/- from the complainant. However, the said debit shown is to be explained by the OP No.2. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       OP No.2 in its reply admitted the fact regarding sanction of loan to the complainant. The OP No.2 pleaded that the policy could not be issued to the complainant as he has not signed the consent form and it accordingly did not debit his account by Rs.27,841/- Since the complainant did not sign the consent form, the OP No.2 only disbursed Rs.19,50,000/- instead of Rs.19,77,841 as the premium of Rs.27,8141  was excluded. The OP No.2 further submitted that subsequently the OP No.1 got the consent form signed from complainant and fixed  premium at Rs.34,044 which was intimated to the complainant but he did not agree to pay the same hence the policy could not be issued. It has been denied that the complainant had been charged in excess. It has been pleaded that installment of complainant were re-scheduled on the basis of Rs.19,77,841/-, however, the actual amount to be repaid by him is Rs.19,50,000/-. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.       The case of the Complainant is that he applied for loan of Rs.19.50 lacs from OP No.1, along with Life Insurance Policy, by paying extra premium of Rs.27,841/-, which was sanctioned on 14.01.2010. The grouse of the Complainant is that the OPs did not issue insurance policy.

7.       OP No.1 has pleaded that it has neither received proposal form/ membership form, nor any premium amount, due to which, the insurance cover could not be issued.

8.       OP No.2 had admitted with regard to the sanction of the loan to the Complainant. It was argued that the Policy could not be issued, as the Complainant had not signed the consent form, so the amount of Rs.27,841/- was not debited to the account of the Complainant. So, the amount of Rs.19.50 lacs was disbursed instead of Rs.19,77,841/-, as the premium of Rs.27,841/- was excluded. It is further argued that OP No.2 got the consent form signed from the Complainant subsequently and fixed premium at Rs.34,044/- under intimation to him, but he did not agree to it, so the policy could not be issued.

9.       The Complainant has not produced an iota of evidence on the record to prove that there was a binding contract between the parties. It is settled proposition of law that acceptance is complete only when communicated to the offeror. In the instant case, the Complainant has failed to prove that the proposal form was filled up prior to 20.07.2010. Annexure C-7 is a proposal form dated 20.7.2010. The OP No.2 has taken a plea that OP No.1 got the said consent form signed from the Complainant subsequently and fixed premium at Rs.34,044/-, but he did not agree to pay the same, hence, the Policy could not be issued. The Complainant has failed to counter the said plea raised by the Bank – OP No.2.

10.      More so, the mere filling up of the proposal form, is not sufficient to prove that there was a concluded contract between the parties, as there is no evidence on the file that the offer made by the Complainant with regard to issuance of insurance policy was accepted by the OPs. Simply receiving and retaining the premium, in our view, is not acceptance. Reliance placed on 1984[2] S.C.C. 719, titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba and Others.

11.      In the case in hand, the OP No.2 has categorically stated that since the Complainant did not sign the consent form, so, the amount of Rs.19.50 lacs was disbursed, instead of Rs.19,77,841/-, as the premium of Rs.27,841/- was excluded. The Complainant has failed to rebut the said plea raised by the Bank.

12.      Now, it is established on record that a contract will conclude only on conveyance of the acceptance of the proposal to the proposer. But, in the instant case, as the proposal itself was not received by OP No.1, thus, there is no question of any acceptance or any concluded contract. There is no privity of contract between the parties to the lis. Furthermore, OP No.1 has not received any premium/ proposal form, for issuing an insurance policy, so the Complainant is not a consumer as envisaged u/s 2[d] of the Act. Thus, there is no question of issuance of any insurance policy, as the relationship of service provider has not been established, nor it is proved that the Complainant has availed or hired the services for consideration.

13.      As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, with the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.   

14.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.