Delhi

North

CC/190/2010

SUDESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2016

ORDER

ROOM NO.2, OLD CIVIL SUPPLY BUILDING,
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/190/2010
 
1. SUDESH KUMAR
E-221, SECTOR-27, NOIDA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SBI LIFE INSURANCE
112, IST FLOOR, DAYANAD ROAD, GOLCHA CINEMA, DARYA GANJ, DELHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. MOHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Subhash Gupta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

O R D E R

SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’  against the Opposite Party, hereinafter to be called as OP. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a policy namely “HORIZON-II” on 31.3.2008 from the OP i.e. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. The premium amount of Rs.3000/- was to be paid quarterly.  The complainant made the payment premium of Rs.3000/- for the month of September 2008 vide cheque No.112002 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Sector 19, Noida in favour of OP which was debited from the account of the complainant on 5.12.2008 but the OP showed the same as unpaid.  It is further alleged in the complaint that inspite of repeated requests and reminders the OP did not issue the premium receipt and the policy lapsed.  The complainant vide the present complaint is claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for  harassment mental agony and inconvenience.  The complainant is further seeking directions to the OP to continue above policy of the complainant.

2.     Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP which has filed its written statement.  The OP has raised certain preliminary objections.  It has been pleaded by the OP that the cheque No.112002 drawn on Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rs.3000/- was put for realization through normal banking channels with the HDFC Bank (collection bank) by the OP.  It is pleaded that the said cheque was dishonoured by the Vijaya Bank due to the reasons that the cheque was not debited from the drawer’s account.  It is further pleaded that subsequently on receipt of the notice of the complaint from this Forum the copy of the statement of account attached by the complainant was forwarded to the HDFC Bank by the OP. It is  pleaded that HDFC Bank vide letter dated 15.9.10 stated that the funds were lying with the service branch of the complainant i.e Vijaya Bank and on regular follow up the pay order amount of Rs.3,000/- was received on 8.9.2010 which was credited to the complainant’s account.  It has been further pleaded that since the payment was not received in 2008 and it was credited to SBI Life only on 8.9.2010, therefore, the OP did not have any control as it was only the domain of the bankers of the complainant. The said amount of Rs.3000/- has been credited to the policy and is kept on deposit as the policy is in lapsed condition. Further premium due since 31.12.2008 has also not been paid by the complainant.  It has been also pleaded by the OP that the policy will be put in force only if the unpaid premium alongwith satisfactory declaration of good health are submitted by the complainant and the OP specifically reserve the right to all further medical requirements and may decline the revival request if the health declaration/condition of the complainant is not satisfactory. 

3.     The OP has further pleaded that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the OP and non-joinder of the necessary parties.  It has been pleaded that the OP cannot be blamed if the bank of the complainant dishonoured the instrument, therefore the main grievance of the complainant should have been against the bank.  It has been also pleaded by the OP that the policy has lapsed due to non-remittance of the due premium.  The premium was due on 30.9.2008 which got credited to the policy and the same has been kept as deposit as the policy is in lapsed condition.  It has been further pleaded that since 31.12.2008, the further premium has not been paid by the complainant, therefore, as per schedule, terms and conditions, point 2A  a grace period of 30 days was allowed for payment and if the same is still not paid all insurance cover will automatically lapse.  It has been pleaded by the complainant that as the premium was not paid in time and the policy has lapsed, therefore the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and is an abuse of the process of law and deserves dismissal.

4.     Both the parties have filed their affidavits in support of their evidence testifying the averments made in the complaint as well written statements.  Complainant has filed cover note of the Insurance Policy and cash deposit receipt dated 29.3.2008.  The complainant has also filed statement of account from Vijaya Bank which shows that a sum of Rs.3,000/- was debited from his account to the SBI Life Insurance.  On the other hand, the OP has filed a copy of the policy along with terms and conditions, letter of HDFC Bank and letter to the complainant regarding revival of the lapsed policy.

5.     We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the documents available on record.  On the outset we agree with the OP that complainant ought to have impleaded Vijaya Bank  as well as HDFC Bank as necessary parties to the complaint because it was due to banking operations the installment of the premium  could not reach the OP.  It was the bounded duty of the complainant to see that the premium is paid to the OP in time.  The OP has placed on record Annexure-B which is a copy of letter addressed to it by HDFC Bank which shows that the Pay Order of Rs.3000/- was received from the Vijaya Bank on 8.9.2010  which was credited in the OP’s account on 8.9.2010.  The OP has also filed on record Annexure-C which is a copy of letter dated 21.9.2010 addressed to the complainant in response to the complainant request for revival of the policy.  This document shows that the OP was ready and willing to revive the policy though subject to payment of all the premiums and certain conditions which was in tune with the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy.

6.     The complainant has remained silent about this aspect of the case. Since the OP has not received the premium amount in time and the policy lapsed therefore OP cannot be held to be deficient in service. Furthermore the OP has afforded an opportunity to the complainant to get the policy revived which he has not chosen for the reasons best known to it.

7.     In view of above discussions we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP.  The complainant is accordingly dismissed.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced this 09th day of May, 2016.

  (K.S. MOHI)                (SUBHASH GUPTA)                      (SHAHINA)

    President                           Member                                  Member

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. MOHI]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subhash Gupta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Shahina]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.