IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 354/08 DATED 16.02.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Lakshmi.K.V., 109, 3rd Cross, Vijayanagar Railway Layout, Mysore-570016.<br /> (By Sri.P.Kumara, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Chief Executive Officer, State Bank of India Life Insurance Co.Ltd., Central Processing Centre, Kapes Bhavan, Plot 3-A, Sector No.10, CBD Nagar, Balapur, Navi Mumbai-406614.<br /> 2. Senior Manager, State Bank of India Life Insurance Co.Ltd., St.Marks Road, Bangalore.<br /> (By Sri.C.M.J., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 12.11.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 02.01.2009<br /> Date of order : 16.02.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief is, that she has taken a life insurance policy from the opposite parties for an assured amount of Rs.50,000/-. She had paid the first premium of Rs.1,150/- and for the second quarter premium gave a cheque No.341469 for Rs.1036 on 16.03.2007 in favour of the opposite parties after deducting the excess amount paid by her initially. Though, she had given that cheque before the due date, but the opposite parties had not presented it and instead the opposite parties told her that her policy has lapsed as policy premium was not paid. That she in order to keep the policy alive had sent a demand draft for the premium amount on 11.08.2007. The opposite parties without looking to the records properly, wrote a letter on 17.12.2007 stating that they are not in respect of cheque No.364759 dated 05.12.2007 for Rs.1,093/-, but to pay Rs.2,407/-, which includes the late fee of Rs.164/- plus interest. The opposite parties have committed mistakes though she gave cheques for all the quarterly premiums as and when they were due. On receipt of such false information from the opposite parties, she sent a detail letter on 07.01.2008 and even spoke to second opposite party about irregularities of the opposite parties. Then the second opposite party returned cheque bearing No.364759 vide its letter dated 17.12.2007 on the ground that previous dues were pending and the policy is lapsed. Then she on 13.02.2008 wrote a detail letter informing about the true facts demanding payment of Rs.2,000/- for her mental agony. Then she received a letter from one of the officials of the opposite parties expressing regrets for mis-communication on their part who also informed her that her cheque no.341469 dated 21.03.2007 got dis-honoured in the first attempt and in second attempt it was honoured on 05.06.2007. But, on their verification with their bank, they found that the said cheque had not been dis-honoured at any time and therefore terming the acts of the opposite parties as deficient has stated that the opposite parties without verifying records went on informing her stating that the policy has lapsed for non-payment of premiums in time and she has been put to harassment and mental agony and therefore has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- with other reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed their objection to this complaint admitting to had issued a policy in favour of the complainant for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and also stated that premium paid by the complainant vide cheque no.341469 dated 16.03.2007 was dis-honoured due to insufficient fund, but later, on presentation it was realized on 05.06.2007. It is further contended that cheques since got realized on 05.06.2007 dis-honoured charges and late fee charges were waived and the policy was brought back into force and further contended that there is no cause of action for this complaint and there is no deficiency in their service, by further stating that the complainant did not pay the premiums on due dates have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the father of the complainant who as GPA holder has filed affidavit evidence narrating what has been stated in their complaint. One Srinivas has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of both the opposite parties. The complainant has produced letters of correspondences that took place between herself and the opposite party also bank passbook of her father. Heard the GPA holder of the complainant, counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties without application of mind have wrongly went on addressing letters to her regarding non-payment of policy premiums in time, though she has paid in time and informing about lapsing of the policy and thereby have caused deficiency in their service?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- On perusal of the contentions of both the parties and the correspondence letters they have produced, it appears that there had been some difference between them with regard to payment of insurance premiums. This difference started when the opposite parties addressed a letter to the complainant on 25.04.2007 stating as if the complainant had not paid premiums as indicated in this letter and the policy has moved into a lapsed status. The complainant in reply to this letter informed the opposite parties in having had paid premiums through cheques disputing the contention of the opposite parties raised in the above letter and this complainant called for certain details from the opposite parties regarding non-payment of the premium. The complainant further on 07.01.2008 addressed a letter to the Chairman of the opposite parties informing them of the encashment of the cheque she had given for payment of the premium. She also wrote letters to the opposite parties on 29.01.2008, 01.02.2008, and 13.02.2008 informing the opposite parties about payment of premiums through cheque. Then the opposite parties who had not responded to these letters finally on 10.03.2008 wrote a letter to the complainant regretting for the mis-communication made by them about the lapsation of the complainant’s policy and they have further stated that cheque no.341469 dated 21.03.2007 got dis-honoured in the first attempt and then got honoured on 05.06.2007 and stated as if the further premiums were paid late as per the details given therein. However, stated as a special case, they have not levied cheque dis-honour charges of Rs.150/- and late fee of Rs.283/- for premiums due from 16.03.2007 to 16.12.2007 and requested the complainant to pay the future premiums regularly and they have further stated that the policy is serviced and continued. From this letter of the opposite parties, it emerges that the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had not paid the earlier premiums in time and therefore the policy had moved into lapsed status is not a correct statement and as admitted by them in their letter dated 10.03.2008 was a mis-communication and therby have regretted for such a communication. Thus, we find no merits in the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had not paid the premiums in time. Even, the particulars regarding premium due and premium payments as given in this letter found to be not correct and tallying, which reflects the casual approach of the opposite parties in handling the policies of the policy holder. In this tabular of this letter dated 10.03.2008 one premium is shown to had become due on 16.12.2007 and the complainant stated to had given the cheque for the premium amount on 11.02.2007, which cannot be said as delayed payment, infact that premium can be said to had been paid very well in advance. Similarly, the next premium, which is shown to had become due on 16.03.2008, the complainant shown to had given the cheque for that premium on 26.02.2007, which was according to the opposite parties given more than one year in advance, therefore even this payment cannot be held as delayed payment. The opposite parties appears to have given the cheque dates as 11.02.2007 and 26.02.2007 instead of giving the date as 11.02.2008 and 26.02.2008, probably it looks so. <br /> <br /> 7. However, on perusal of this letter of the opposite parties dated 10.03.2008, the opposite parties giving up their contention about belated payment of the earlier premiums have confined to the alleged dis-honour of cheque No.341469 dated 21.03.2007 and they have stated as if that cheque on first presentation was dis-honoured, but on subsequent presentation it was honoured. This statement of the opposite parties is challenged by the complainant by presenting a letter of their banker dated 07.06.2008 under which the banker of the complainant’s father on whose account the cheque was drawn in favour of the opposite parties for payment of premium has stated that as per their records, the cheque under reference was not at all returned by them for want of funds. The complainant has also produced the passbook of her father on whose account the cheque was drawn for payment of the premium discloses that the father of the complainant as on the date of issue of the cheque in question and subsequently had sufficient funds for honouring that cheque. These entries of the passbook and letter of the banker of the complainant’s father disclose that there is no truth in the contention of the opposite parties that cheque No.341469 dated 21.03.2007 got dis-honoured at the first instance.<br /> <br /> 8. During the arguments of this complaint, the counsel for the opposite parties was directed to produce the endorsement issued by the banker of the father of the complainant on whose account cheque was drawn to prove it was dis-honoured as alleged by the opposite parties. But, the opposite parties and their counsel have failed to produce any such bank endorsement evidencing dis-honour of that cheque. Therefore it is manifest that opposite parties have given an untruth information regarding dis-honour of the cheque and tried to overcome the lapses of their part. Thus, the affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant substantiate the fact that the cheque in question which had been issued in favour of the opposite parties towards payment of the premium has been honoured by the banker when it was presented for collection. The opposite parties, it is found by not properly maintaining the file and relevant entries have caused unnecessary embracement and anxiety to the complainant by branding the complainant as defaulter in payment of premiums and further threatening of the policy lapsation. As such, the opposite parties can be safely be held to have failed in their duty in keeping track of the maintenance of the policy file and which has resulted in as deficiency in their service and for this deficiency of the opposite parties, the complainant has been put to unrest leading to number of correspondences she has done. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3,000/- as damages for embracement, anxiety and for unrest within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite parties are held jointly and severally shall pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 16th February 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />