By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- From years before, the Complainant had a mediclaim policy with the Opposite Party Company and he was used to renew it. To get coverage in the year 2019-2020 the father of the Complainant (Power of Attorney Holder) approached the Opposite Party and entrusted a cheque No.464942 dated 07.08.2019 for Rs.3,293/- drawn on SBI, Sulthan Bathery Branch. The Opposite Party on verification, accepted the cheque and issued policy No.576030501910000029 from 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020. In addition to the above cheque, the father of the Complainant had given another cheque on the same date itself for a mediclaim insurance policy which was encashed by the Opposite Party Company. Things being so, on 02.01.2020, a letter dated 09.08.2019 was sent by the first Opposite Party which was received by the Complainant on 03.01.2020. In that letter it was stated that the cheque given by the father of the Complainant was dishonoured and so the policy was being cancelled and if the Complainant wished to take new policy, the Complainant should remit the amount or give Demand Draft and also intimated that the coverage would have effect from the date on which the policy was taken. Though the matter was enquired, the Opposite Party did not give a clear reply to the Complainant’s father for about one month. Then approaching the bank, it was known that the said cheque was not reached the bank for collection. It was understood by the Complainant that the Opposite Party had not sent the cheque for collection. In the letter forwarded by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, the reason for the dishonour of the cheque had not seen noted. The date 09.08.2019 noted in the letter is false. From the postal receipt it is understood that the letter was despatched only on 02.01.2020. If the letter had been forwarded to the Complainant on 09.08.2019, the Complainant would get it on the very next day itself and the Complainant could get the opportunity to renew the policy remitting the premium due on his continuing policy long before. So, there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties, causing irreparable loss and injury. The Opposite Party has not returned the so called dishonoured cheque to the Complainant or his father. Though the Complainant’s father requested the first Opposite Party to renew the policy without break, the first Opposite Party did not cancel the cancellation of the policy of the Complainant. The acts of the Opposite Parties are irresponsible with evil intention to cheat the Complainant with a view to not extent the benefits in the existing policy, which caused mental agony to the Complainant and his father. Hence, this complaint to get cancelled the cancellation of the existing policy with effect from 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020, to get compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and to get Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
3. Summons were served upon the Opposite Parties and they appeared and filed version, the contents of which are as follows:- This Opposite Party admits that mediclaim policy was issued in the name of the Complainant Mr. Jona Jacob George for the period from 06.08.2015 to 05.08.2016, 06.08.2016 to 05.08.2017, 09.08.2017 to 08.08.2018 and 09.08.2018 to 08.08.2019. It is also admitted that the Complainant had submitted a cheque No: 464942 dated 08.08.2019 for Rs.3,292/- towards the renewal of the Policy for the Period from 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020. Accordingly the Opposite Party had renewed the policy on good faith. Thereafter, the Opposite Party realized that the cheque issued by the Complainant towards the premium amount was dishonoured for the reason that payees Name entered by the drawer of the cheque was different. Though the fact of dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the insured through telephone, no steps were taken by the insured to rectify the same. The Policy issued to the Complainant specifically stipulated that in case of dishonour of the premium cheque, the Policy document stands automatically cancelled ab-intito without any further notice. Accordingly the Policy issued to the Complainant was cancelled. The Opposite Party denied the allegation that the first Opposite Party has examined the cheque and received the same. It is not correct to say that the cheque No: 464942 was issued towards the premium of the vehicle. This Opposite Party admits that a letter was sent to the Complainant intimating the dishonour of cheque as part of the business. The allegation that the Opposite Party had not sent the cheque for collection is false allegation made for the purpose of the case. The allegation that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the first Opposite Party is not correct and is against the facts of the case. The allegation to the effect that the act of the Opposite Party is to cheat the Complainant and to delink the old policy so as to avoid the benefits under the old policy and the same is an unfair trade practice etc are also false. As per the terms of the policy issued to the Complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint. The liability of the Opposite Party is only limited to- the terms and conditions of the policy provisions and exceptions. The Complainant is not entitled to get the renewal of the policy with continuity as claimed. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant had not made any payment for renewal of policy claimed by him.
4. From the side of the Complainant, Chief affidavit was filed and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the Opposite Parties had no oral evidence and hence the complaint was heard on 09.08.2023.
5. Considering various aspects including the evidences brought before us, we raised the following points for deciding the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- If so, relief and cost..?
6. Point No.1:- The Complainant was a policy holder of the Opposite Party Company which is evident from Ext.A1. The case of the Complainant is that a cheque dated 07.08.2019 for Rs.3,293/- was issued to the Opposite Party Company for renewal of the above policy but, the Opposite Party Company did not renew the policy stating that the cheque was dishonoured and hence informed the Complainant that if he wanted to renew the policy, to remit cash or give Demand Draft so as to take a new policy. The Complainant also alleged that this is with an evil intention of the Opposite Party who had not presented the cheque in time of its validity with a view to curtail the benefits available in the present policy to the Complainant. But the contention of the Opposite Party is that they had received the cheque for Rs.3,292/- towards renewal of the policy for the period from 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020 and they had renewed the policy. Thereafter, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason that the payee name entered by the drawer of the cheque was different and though the fact was intimated to the insured through telephone, no steps were taken by the insured to rectify the same. The Opposite Party also stated in version that the policy issued to the Complainant stipulated that in case of dishonour of the premium cheque, the policy documents stands automatically cancelled ab-initio without any further notice and accordingly the policy was cancelled. But on verification of Ext.A2 issued by the Opposite Party, the reason for the dishonour the cheque is seen not given. To prove the contention of the Opposite Party, the original cheque which is said to be dishonoured has not been produced by the Opposite Party before this Commission. Moreover, Ext.A5 which is the certified copy of the bank statement of account of the Complainant with SBI shows that the Complainant had sufficient fund in his account to honour the cheque by the bank. In addition, the Opposite Party Company has failed to produce the original cheque in question to establish the allegation of the Opposite Party that the cheque was dishonoured as the payee’s name entered by the drawer of the cheque was different. It is also to be noted that no documentary evidence is adduced before the Commission by the Opposite Party to establish the contentions of the Opposite Party in version.
7. So, considering the documents produced and marked and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Opposite Party Company has cancelled the existing policy of the Complainant on untenable ground so as to curtail the policy benefits available to the Complainant on an existing policy and to enrich a huge amount of premium on issue of a new policy to the Complainant which is unscrupulous exploitation of policy holder leading to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. So, there has been unfair trade practice/deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Parties.
8. Point No.2:- Unfair trade practice/deficiency in service is proved against the Opposite Parties and hence they are liable to extent the relief to the Complainant as prayed for but the amount of compensation claimed is seen exorbitant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to
- Renew the policy of the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order with effect from the date of remittance of renewal premium accepting the same amount of premium as payable at the time of cancellation of his last policy, as the last policy period has expired, only if the Complainant approaches the Opposite Party Company to renew the policy with willingness to remit the premium of Rs.3,293/- either in cash, Demand Draft, Cheque or by bank transfer.
- Pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) towards compensation for mental agony, other inconvenience and loss
- Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint.
The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of August 2023.
Date of Filing:-10.06.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. George. M. N. Retired State Government Employee.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Policy Schedule for the period of 09.08.2019 to 08.08.2020.
A2. Letter. Dt:09.08.2019.
A3. Letter cover.
A4. Copy of Letter. Dt:03.02.2020.
A5. Account statement from 07.08.2019 to 09.11.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
