DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.200 of 12.5.2016
Decided on: 3.8.2017
- Geetanjali Sharma D/o Sh.Vikas Sharma.
- Naman Sharma S/o Sh.Vikash Sharma
Through their mother and natural guardian Smt.Neetu Sharma W/o Mr.Vikash Sharma C/o Kiranjit Kaur # 53-C, Ranjit Nagar, New Bhadson Octroi, backside Sachdeva Hospital, Patiala 147001.
…………...Complainants
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Office Unit 2, Post Box No.62, 8-9( Ground Floor) Jeevan Jyoti, Chhoti Baradari adjoining Axis Bank, Patiala.
2. The Branch Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd., 36-37, New Leela Bhawan, Patiala 147001.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Smt.Neetu Sharma, mother/natural guardian
of the minor complainants.
Sh.T.M.Sayal,Advocate,counsel for opposite party No.1
Sh.B.B.Gupta,Advocate,counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt.Neetu Sharma, the mother and natural guardian of the complainants has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. the sum assured of both the policies ( Rs.3,00,000/-each)
- To pay Rs.9,94,400/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 28.9.2015, the mother/natural guardian of the complainants took two LIC policies, bearing Nos.165671908 and 165671909, in the name of her minor children namely Geetanjali Sharma and Naman Sharma, respectively with the basic sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-each and took auto debit (ESC) facility from LIC for the payment of premiums on monthly basis. It is averred that the premiums for the months of October and November,2015, were deducted through auto debit (ECS) but from the month of December,2015 onwards LIC premiums were not auto debited . No intimation with regard to the non debit of the premiums was given by the OPs. The complainant visited the OPs time and again to know the reason but no satisfactory reply was given by them. A written complaint to this effect was filed on 22.3.2016 before OP no.2, which gave reply to the said complaint on 25.3.2016. A written complaint through registered post was also sent to OP no.1 which replied the said complaint on 1.4.2016.Due to non deduction of premiums automatically, by the OPs, the LIC policies stood lapsed, which caused grave loss to their children. It showed deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the guardian of the complainants.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written versions. In the written version filed by OP no.1, it has taken preliminary objection that the complaint is bad for mi-joinder of necessary parties and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits , it is admitted that it deals in the life insurance. It is further stated that the LIC premiums for the months of October and November,2015 were received through ECS mode, but due to CDA action taken by Bank on 5.1.2016, the premium for December,2015 was not received. In this regard, it is stated that a letter was written by OP no.2 to the husband of Neetu Sharma that there had been a migration of ECS deduction from RECS Platform to NACS Platform in the month of January,2016 and all the inward ECS transactions handled by the branches has been centralized. As such it was for OP no.2 who was under obligation to inform the complainants to send the fresh updated mandates for auto debit for the purposes of centralized deductions. Had such information been demanded at the relevant time, the policies in question would not have been lapsed. The receipt of the complaint and the reply to the same has been admitted by the OP. It is stated that due to non payment of premiums, the policies are lying in lapsed condition. If the entire due premiums with regard to the policies are paid, then the policies can easily be revived. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version filed by OP no.2, it took preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for want of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, It is admitted that Neetu Sharma alongwith her husband Sh.Vikas Sharma opened a joint saving bank account No.16610100021367. The account holders are bound to abide by the terms and conditions & rules/instructions of the Bank from time to time as agreed and undertook at the time of opening of the account. It is admitted that OP no.1 deals in Life insurance and OP no.2 deals in banking. It is admitted to the extent that an amount of Rs.1164/- and Rs.1338/- was auto debited from above saving bank account on 28.10.2015.Thereafter an amount of Rs.1340/- and Rs.1166/- was auto debited to the said account for its payment to LIC. It is stated that such auto debit system, operates automatically by the software put in the system according to the rules and instructions of the Bank and that too at Head Office level. It is also stated that there was a migration of ECS deduction from RECS Platform to NACH platform in the month of January,2016.All the insured ECS transactions so handled by the branches had been centralized. As such the customers were required to furnish and update their particulars for auto debit but the complainants failed to furnish such particulars although the complainants have facility of on-line banking and have instant access to the status of the account 24 hours. Further more each and every credit and debit in the account is automatically informed to the respective account holder by automatic SMS facility, so the complainant cannot claim that he came to know about non debit of the premiums only in the month of March,2016. It is admitted that it received the letter from Sh.Vikash Sharma and replied the same. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On being called to do so, Smt.Neetu Sharma, mother of the complainants tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and has closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Rohit Upadhaya alongwith documents,Exs.OP1 to OP16 and closed the evidence.
The ld.counsel for OP no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB, affidavit of Sh.V.K.Arora, Manager(Legal) HPF alongwith documents Exs.OP17 and OP18 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the representative of the complainant, the ld. counsel for OPs no.1&2, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for OP no.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Smt.Neetu Sharma, mother and natural guardian of the minor complainants has submitted that on 28.9.2015, she purchased two insurance policies in the name of her minor children for sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-each. She alongwith her husband Sh.Vikas Sharma is having a joint account bearing No. 16610100021367 with the Federal Bank Ltd. i.e. OP no.2. The premiums for the said policies were to be auto debited from the said account. The amount for the months of October and November/2015 was duly deducted from their account through ECS. However, from the month of December,2015, onward, LIC premiums were not debited. Due to non payment of the premiums, the insurance policies of her children are lying in a lapsed condition. All this happened , due to negligence of the Ops. Therefore, they are liable to pay the total sum assured of Rs.6,00,000/- and also a sum of Rs.9,94,000/- as compensation , as prayed for in the complaint.
8. The ld. counsel for OP no.1 has submitted that due to non-payment of the premiums , the policies in question are lying in lapsed condition, and same can easily be revived, if the entire due premiums are paid. However, Smt.Neetu Sharma, mother of the minor children, instead of getting revived the policies in question has preferred to file the present complaint. Since OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service, therefore, the present complaint qua it may kindly be dismissed with cost.
9. The ld. counsel for OP no.2 has submitted that due to migration of ECS deduction from RECS Platform to NACH platform in the month of January,2016.All the insured ECS transactions so handled by the branches had been centralized and all the customers including Sh Vikash Sharma and Smt.Neetu Sharma, who are having joint account, with it, were duly informed through various modes to furnish and update their particulars for auto-debit. A notice in this regard was also affixed on the notice board of the Bank. Inspite of that neither Sh. Vikas Sharma nor Smt.Neetu Sharma, i.e. parents of the policies holder did not furnish the details and due to which, the premiums for the said policies could not be debited. Thus the bank cannot be said to be deficient in providing services.
10. From the copies of insurance policies, Exs.C1& C2, it is evident that the same are in the name of Baby Geetanjali D/o Sh. Vikas Sharma and Master Naman Sharma S/o Sh.Vikas Sharma respectively. From the statement of account Ex.C3, it is evident that the premiums for the aforesaid policies had been debited for the months of October and November/2015. It is fairly admitted by OP no.2 that Smt.Neetu Sharma alongwith her husband had opted for ECS facility. The plea of OP No.2 is that due to CDA action taken by the bank it duly informed all its customers including Smt.Neetu Sharma and her husband Sh.Vikas Sharma, to furnish/update their particulars. But they did not do so. However, to corroborate this fact, no document has been placed on record by OP no.2 . Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that OP no.2 had informed Smt.Neetu Sharma or her husband Sh.Vikas Sharma regarding furnishing/updating of their particulars. As such, we do not hesitate to conclude that OP No.2 was negligent in performing its duties. At the same time, this fact cannot be ignored that Smt.Neetu Sharma, came to know about furnishing of fresh/update mandates for the purpose of ECS facility, to the bank, in the month of March,2016, from the reply dated 25.3.2016,Ex.C5, received by her husband qua the complaint dated 22.3.2016, Ex.C4, filed by him. However, she did not furnish the requisite information to the Bank, even thereafter, as a result whereof, the policies are lying in a lapsed condition with OP no.1.Thus, it can easily be said that Smt.Neetu Sharma is also negligent in performing her duties and it is a case of contributory negligence. Therefore, the prayer made for issuance of directions to the Ops to pay Rs.6,00,000/- i.e. sum assured of both the policies and Rs.9,94,000/- as compensation cannot be accepted. However, in our considered opinion, the end of justice would be met if, the lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- is paid to Smt.Neetu Sharma, mother and natural guardian of the minor children, by OP no.2. Since no deficiency in service against OP no.1 has been proved, therefore, no liability can be fastened against it. As such complaint filed qua it is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.1 and partly allow the same against OP no.2 and direct it to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- to Smt.Neetu Sharma the mother/natural guardian of minor children, within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which it shall pay interest @7% per annum on the said amount from the date of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:3.8. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
