Haryana

Karnal

CC/314/2021

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Gureja

24 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 314 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.07.07.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:24.07.2024

 

Gurdeep Singh son of Shri Hazara Singh, resident of village Thal Tehsil Assandh District Karnal, aged about 68 years (Aadhar no.4305 8386 1381).

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Assandh, District Karnal.

 

2. TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, sector-12, City Centre, Karnal.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Surinder Gureja,

                   counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Suraj Kanwar, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Vikas Bakshi, counsel for the OP no.2.

               

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 without the consent of complainant on 02.04.2019 transferred an amount of Rs.1,04,500/- from the account of complainant in the account of OP no.2 and when complainant came to know about the said act of OP no.1, he visited the office of the OP no.1 and asked about reason of transferring said amount in the account of OP no.2 but OP no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant contacted the OP no.2 and asked about the reason for getting funds of his name from OP no.1 then official concerned stated that OP no.2 has issued a policy in the name of complainant, vide policy no.C-185526069. The complainant on coming to know of said fact was again taken by surprise that OPs no.1 and 2 after hatching a conspiracy with each other and in order to grab the money of complainant has issued the said policy without the consent and permission of complainant and also knowing the fact that complainant is of more than the age of 67 years and at this stage of age no policy can be issued to him by any insurance company. OP no.2 do this act very secretly because OP no.2 neither got signature of complainant on consent form nor issued any kind of policy to complainant. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to refund the abovesaid amount but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.03.2021 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer qua the answering OP, there is no contract and any type of consideration has taken place between the OP no.1 and has not charged any kind of premium of insurance policy from the complainant. All the risks and liabilities are covered by the OP no.2 only who had issued the policy to the complainant. OP no.1 only provides the banking services to the people and for deposit, withdrawal, transfer of the money. The role of OP no.1 is limited as to a corporate agent/facilitator whereas the actual insurance is issued by the OP no.2 and as such the complaint cannot be filed against the OP no.1. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 never transferred an amount of Rs.104500/- on 02.04.2019 without the consent of the complainant in the account of OP no.2 but it was the complainant only who has issued a cheque no.355134 for a sum of Rs.104500/- dated 30.03.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 30.03.2021) duly signed by the complainant in favour of OP no.2. A policy no.C-185526069 was issued by the OP no.2 in favour of complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had submitted to OP no.2, a fully filled application/ proposal form dated 31.03.2019 alongwith singed Customer Declaration Form dated 03.04.2019 for the purchase of TATA AIA Life Insurance Fortune Guarantee Plan. As such, policy bearing no.C185526069 was purchased by the complainant from the OP no.2. The commencement date of the policy being 31.03.2019 and the sum assured in the policy was Rs.10,00,000/- with an annual premium of Rs.1,02,250/- per year. The proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the complainant and consequently the policy was issued. It is alleged in the complaint that the Insurance Policy was issued without the consent of the complainant, whereas it is pertinent to mention here that the proposal/application was processed only after confirmation from complainant. Moreover, voice call was also made to the complainant by OP no.2 regarding the confirmation of the issuance of the insurance policy. The original policy was dispatched to the complainant at his registered address through Blue Dart Express Ltd. under AWB no.36222407966 on 13.04.2019 which was duly delivered to the complainant and no such objection was raised. It is further pleaded that all the policy document delivered to the complainant without providing her a period of 15 days within which he could have returned the policy to the OP no.2 by stating the reason thereof. Since the said option has not been exercised by the life assured/complainant/ proposal within the stipulated period of 15 days, therefore, now the complainant cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said policy. Complainant has paid only one premium in the said policy and thereafter did not pay subsequent premiums, consequently the policy has been discontinued due to non-payment of future premiums. Once the policy has been discontinued due to non-payment of premiums for the subsequent years within the stipulated period, hence, the complainant is no more a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts and acknowledgement Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 20.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             In additional evidence, complainant has tendered his aadhar card Ex.C7 and closed the additional evidence on 27.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP  no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gaurav Gupta Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 08.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsimran Singh, Manager Ex.OP2W/A, authority letter Ex.OP1, proposal form Ex.OP2, copy of customer declaration form Ex.OP3, copy of letter dated 04.12.2019 Ex.OP4, copy of dispatch details Ex.OP5, copy of premium payment intimation Ex.OP6, copy of investigation report Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 02.04.2019 without the consent of complainant, OP no.1 transferred an amount of Rs.1,04,500/- from the account of complainant in the account of OP no.2. Complainant contacted the OPs and enquired about the same, then he came to know that a policy has been issued to the complainant without the consent and permission of complainant and also knowing the fact that complainant is of more than age of 67 years. Complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested to refund the abovesaid amount but OPs did not pay the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 only provides the banking services to the people and for deposit, withdrawal, transfer of the money. The role of OP no.1 is limited as to a corporate agent/facilitator. OP no.1 never transferred an amount of Rs.104500/- on 02.04.2019 without the consent of the complainant in the account of OP no.2 but it was the complainant only who has issued a cheque of Rs.104500/- dated 30.03.2019 (wrongly mentioned as 30.03.2021) duly signed by the complainant in favour of OP no.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had submitted a fully filled proposal form dated 31.03.2019 alongwith singed Customer Declaration Form dated 03.04.2019 for the purchase of TATA AIA Life Insurance Fortune Guarantee Plan to the OP no.2. As such, policy bearing no.C185526069 was issued to the complainant. The commencement date of the policy being 31.03.2019 and the sum assured in the policy was Rs.10,00,000/- with an annual premium of Rs.1,02,250/- per year.  The original policy was dispatched to the complainant at his registered address which was duly delivered to the complainant and no such objection was raised. He further argued that complainant did not approach the OP to cancel the policy within freelook period of 15 days and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

13.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

14.           Complainant has alleged that on 02.04.2019, OP no.1 transferred an amount of Rs.104500/- in the account of OP no.2  without his consent for issuance of an insurance policy.  Complainant approached the OPs several times and requested to refund the abovesaid amount but OPs did not pay same. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant did not placed on file any application, postal receipt and acknowledgement to the OPs, vide which he applied for refund the abovesaid amount. Complainant placed on file statement of account Ex.C2, on perusal of the said statement it reveals that complainant himself issued a cheque bearing no.355134 amounting to Rs.104500/. to the OP no.1 for insurance premium. On the other hand, OP no.2 has relied upon the documents proposal form Ex.OP2 and copy of customer declaration form Ex.OP3, same is duly signed by the complainant.  OP no.2 further alleged that the original policy was dispatched to the complainant at his registered address, which was duly delivered to the complainant. To prove its version, OP has placed on file dispatch details Ex.OP5. It is not a case of the complainant that he has not received the said policy document.

15.           The complainant did not raise any objection during the freelook period i.e. 15 days as per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex.OP4. The complainant put his signature on proposal form Ex.OP2 in which detail of the policy and terms and condition was mention. Hence, in view of the above, we do not agree with the contention of the complainant that OP no.1 deducted the amount of Rs.1,04,500/- without his consent.

16.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:24.07.2024                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                          Member