DATE OF FILING : 24.09.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 09.12.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 02.08.2016.
Sri Madan Lal Sah,
son of late Mohan Lal Sah,
flat no. 405, 4th floor,
12/2, Rabindra Sarani, Liluah, P.O. Liluah,
P.S. Bally, Howrah,
PIN 711204. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,
Gagananchal, Building no. 37,
Dr. Abani Dutta Road, 1st floor,
Howrah – 711106.
2. The General Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,
GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune 4f11006.………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Madan Lal Sah, against the o.p. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, and General Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, praying for a direction upon the o.ps., to supply original insurance paper being policy no. 0319407657 to the petitioner as per his application or refund his insurance premium of Rs. 45,000/- which was received by the o.ps. at the time of making the insurance policy within 18% interest and to pay compensation for their negligent act and costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that in the month of October, 2014 the o.ps. approached the petitioner and offered him loan of Rs. 15 lakhs on condition that he would be required to deposit 3% of the loan amount as insured sum amounting to Rs. 45,000/- for said loan of Rs. 15 lakhs. On 25.10.2014 the representative of the o.p. received Rs. 45,000/- from the petitioner through SBI cheque no. 248801 dated 25.10.2014 being insurance premium of the o.ps. and the petitioner also signed the insurance papers. On 01.11.2014 the o.p. received the amount as could be noticed from the bank statement of the petitioner and then the petitioner requested the o.p. to supply the original insurance paper being policy no. 0319407657 but the o.p. no. 1 by a letter informed him that the said policy had been registered on 09.12.2014 with query no. 56358584 but no original policy paper was supplied to the petitioner. After receiving the reply on 09.12.2014 lthe petitioner requested the o.ps. for several times to deliver the original insurance paper of the said policy and on 21.01.2015 the o.p. no. 2 sent him a reply that as per system the policy bond was discharged on 04.11.2014 through speed post consignment no. EM 392345017 IN at the mailing address of the petitioner and the same showing delivery of the document on 28.11.2014. Then having no other alternative the petitioner lodged a complaint before the C.A.F.B., Howrah, but the petitioner got no result from mediation. On 26.02.2015 the petitioner received a mail from the o.ps. informing him that his application being no. 5948544085 is under process and the petitioner would get the verification call from the o.p. no. 2 and they also confirmed the petitioner that his request for supplying original policy paper has been registered with them being request no. 56358584 but they could not supply any papers of the said insurance policy even after registering the request. On 30.03.2015 the petitioner sent a reminder through post to o.p. no. 2 requesting him to provide original insurance paper but the o.ps. without supplying any insurance policy sent letter dated 10.04.2015 to the petitioner with the same reply as on 21.01.2015 stating that as per their system the policy bond was discharged. Then having no other alternative the petitioner filed this case.
- The o.p. nos. 1 & 2, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that they are carrying on their business as life insurance company and governed and regulated by the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999. This complaint / petition filed by the petitioner does not involve an issue of deficiency in service as our Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Surinder Kaur & others declared that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum can be invoked only in the case where there has been deficiency in service on the part of the insurer. This petition is not at all maintainable as the policy no. 0319407657 was delivered by the insurance company on 09.11.2014 by speed post under registration no. EM 392345017IN and was delivered to the petitioner on 12.11.2014 and have also filed the photo copy of the delivery report showing the status of the speed post. They further submitted that the petitioner has already enjoyed the insurance cover for the period for which the premium has been paid and the premium is nothing but the consideration of contract for which he has enjoyed the risk cover. The petitioner has no complain about the terms and conditions of the policy on receipt of the policy document. Hence no question of refunding premium and payment of compensation, interest arises and cost does not arise at all and nor the petitioner sought cancellation within the 15 days free look period. This complaint of the petitioner is fictitious and vexatious and deserves to be dismissed U/S 26 of the C. P. Act, 1986 imposing punitive damages of the complainant and the case be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed documents being xerox copy of the cheque of the S.B.I. dated 25.10.2014 showing transfer of Rs. 45,000/- by him in favour of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and from the statement of bank account filed by him it is noticed that on 01.11.2014 Rs. 45,000/- was cleared in favour of o.ps., Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited. By letter dated 09.12.2014 the o.ps., Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, informed the petitioner that his request for ‘policy bond not received’ under the above policy has been registered with them on 09.12.2014 with query no. 56358584 and other documents in support of his case. The o.p. on the other hand filed track report of the postal department showing that they sent the document by speed post on 09.11.2014 and the said item was delivered to the petitioner on 12.11.2014 which proved the fact that the petitioner received the document. But the petitioner since the very beginning has been complaining against non delivery of the policy document and asking the o.p. to deliver the document even if the track report is a computer generated document and there is nothing to disbelieve the same yet it would be wise for the o.p. insurance company to deliver a fresh copy of the policy document to the petitioner as no document has been produced in the form of A/d card or any thing like that bearing the signature of the petitioner that he has received the policy document from the o.p. and also the postal peon also not personally authenticating such delivery of postal item. There is nothing much to discuss here when the petitioner simply prayed for supplying him the policy document no. 0319407657. The service provider providing service must keep in mind that their service is not provided technically but the same service would satisfy the person taking the service i.e., consumers who are seen to have been provided with such service. Here when the consumer submits before this forum that he has not received the policy document and simply producing the track report of the postal department would not suffice the purpose of the o.p. who ought to have supplied the policy document then and then when they received the letter from the petitioner that the policy bond was not received by him after making payment of premium.
In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner is entitled to get the policy document afresh.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. No. 336 of 2015 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for and the o.p. is to provide the original policy document to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order.
The O.P. be directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., the petitioner is at liberty to put the order in execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
