DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 1123/2007
Sh. Vijay Pal,
S/o Mohar Singh,
B-3/11, DDA Market,
Nand Nagari, In front of State Bank
Delhi - 110093 ...Complainant
Versus
1. The Manager/Authorized Signatory
State Bank of India,
SBI Local Head Office,
11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110001
2. Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Ltd.
Sundaram Tower 45,
White House Road, Chennai-14 ...Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.10.2007 Date of Order : 20.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is said to have taken loan of Rs. 25,000/- on 6.10.2006 on the basis of credit card No. 4317575705932888. He allegedly took insurance from OP-2 and Rs. 4307/- was withheld by OP-1 against OP-2 on account of the insurance premium. The complainant states that in Nov. 2006 and in Feb. 2007, a sum of Rs. 1528/- and Rs. 2153/- were withheld respectively for the purpose of policy of OP-2 but no policy documents are alleged to have been given to the complainant. The complainant further states that after enquiring through telephone during Jan. 2007, he was assured by the concerned person/staff that the documents will be sent within 2 months (the complaint does not disclose with whom the telephonic conversation took place i.e. whether OP-1 or OP-2). The complainant accordingly sent a legal notice on 1.6.2007 asking for payment of Rs. 7918/- withheld by respondent (not clear whether OP-1 or OP-2) relating to withholding of Rs. 7918/- and asking them to send policy within 7 days of receipt of the notice. The OP-2 is said to have sent letter dated 16.8.2007 informing that the bank of the complainant has declined to charge the credit card No. 4317575705932888 towards premium of Rs. 1534/- thereby expressing their inability to process the policy. Complainant on 18.9.2007 replied through his counsel stating that no policy/document relating to money withheld by authorized agent/body has been sent, hence, question of payment of premium does not arise. The complainant further states that the policy was cancelled despite not receiving documents pertaining to policy. The complainant raises liability of interest on Rs. 7918/- @ 36% p.a. on account of money withheld by OP-1. Having failed to get any fruitful response from the OPs regarding non-receipt of policy documents or payment of Rs. 7918/-, he has invoked jurisdiction of this forum for redressal of his grievances with the following prayers:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble may kindly be pleased to interfere in the matter thereby directing the respondent to return Rs. 7918/- to complainant alongwith interest @ 36% p.a. as the respondent is also charging the rate of interest @ 3% p.m. from the complainant upon the loan given by it to complainant, in the interest of justice. Compensation and cost of the complaint be awarded in the interest of justice.
OP-1 has not filed written statement but has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC requesting this forum to reject the application of the complainant for the reasons that the complaint does not disclose cause of action against the OP-1.
OP-2 has filed written statement stating therein that issued health shield insurance policy No. HS00101332000100 valid from 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007 to the complainant upon getting remittance from the State Bank India Cards for a sum of Rs. 4307/-. Copy of policy issued to complainant is marked as Ex. 1. They further state that during the month of Jan 2007 the complainant verbally requested for the cancellation of the policy issued to him and thereafter the OP-2 acting promptly upon the instructions given by the complainant cancelled the policy and refunded a sum of Rs. 2,153 (50% of the premium amount) on pro-rata basis since the policy was more than 3 months old. The relevant policy conditions for deductions as per the policy conditions is reproduced in Para 5 of their reply. OP-2 further states that they had promptly dispatched the insurance policy valid from 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007 to the complainant in the month of Sept. 2006 itself. They have further stated that the complainant has never written a letter to them about the non-issuance of the policy to the OP-2 till date, except for a legal notice addressed to OP-1 and copy sent to OP-2 on 1.6.2007 alleging that no policy documents were received by the complainant after a period of 8 months after the credit statement was received by the complainant. A copy of the statement of SBI Cards for the month of October 2006 is attached as Ex. 3. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP-2 reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. G. Vinay Prakash, Senior Executive has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP-2.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 2.6.2014. We have heard the Proxy Counsel for OP-1 & Counsel for OP-2 and have also carefully gone through the record.
Now we straightway come to the question, whether relief prayed for is admissible or not?
The complainant has filed the statement of credit card dated 6.10.06 wherein a sum of Rs. 4307/- has been debited on account of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., i.e., OP-2. In another statement of the Credit Card dated 6.11.06, there is no debit against OP-2. Then in the statement of Credit Card dated 6.2.2007, there is no debit against OP-2. On the other hand, OP-2 has submitted copy of the statement of Credit Card dated 6.10.06, 6.2.2007 showing debit of Rs. 4307/- and Rs. 2153/- respectively. The OP-2 has also enclosed a copy of letter dated August 16, 2007 showing declining of Rs. 1534/- by the Credit Card Account as stated above.
The main grievance of the complainant is seemingly against OP-2 for non-issuance of policy documents and against OP-1 for refund of Rs. 7918/- along with interest @ 36% p.a.
Having carefully examined the evidence on record, we find that neither the complainant has adduced any evidence to prove whether any communication was made with OP-2/OP-1 for non-receipt of insurance papers. On the other hand, OP-2 has taken defence that the complainant in the month of Jan. 2007 had requested for cancellation of policy No. HS00101332000100 orally though there is no documentary evidence to this effect adduced by OP-2 but the credit card statement dated 6.10.06 Ex. 3 shows credit of Rs. 4307/- in favour of the OP-2 towards the first premium of insurance and credit of Rs. 2153/- towards refund of 50% of the premium amount refunded to the complainant towards cancellation of the policy. We have also examined Ex. 2 relied upon by OP-2 wherein in case of cancellation of policy between more than 1 month upto 3 months, 50% of annual scale of rate of the premium is to be refunded. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the defence taken by OP-2 towards cancellation of policy at the insistence of the complainant and refund of amount by the OP-2 proves the fact of cancellation of policy at the behalf of the complainant. Rest of the averments made by the complainant are not supported by any documentary evidence.
Viewed from above background, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 20.08.16.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 1123/07
20.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S.S. FONIA) (NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
