Satish Kumar Bansal s/o Sh.Sham Sunder Bansal, R/o Opp. Post Office V.P.O. Barwala, Distt.Panchkula.

V e r s u s

1.     The Branch Manager, Canara H.S.B.C. withst

2.     The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:Sh. Satish Kumar Bansal, appellant, in person.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.             had lapsed, and he would get the surrender value only. ^{It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- (after deducting the necessary charges, as per the IRDA Regulations 2010), as surrender value of the Policy, in question; compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; pay interest @18% P.A., on the aforesaid amounts, from 19.04.2010 till realization; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.}

3.           

4.           

5.           

6.            

7.           

8.            

9.           

10.         

11.        

12.        19.05.2011, a cheque, in the sum of Rs.4,916.13Ps., towards surrender value of the same (Policy), which it had acquired, was sent to the complainant, vide Annexure C-8, letter dated 

13.        The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

14.        No other point, was urged, by the appellant.

15.        

16.        

17.        

18.        

Pronounced.

September 3, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg