JUDGEMENT

The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Sri Ganapati Saha, S/o. Late Gobinda Chandra Saha, R/o Manaskamana Road, Fulbari, P.S. English Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Malda, PIN – 732 101. u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said petition was registered before this Forum now renamed as Commission as Complaint Case No. 101/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased mediclaim policy for himself and his wife and son viz. Mili Saha and Abhijit Saha from the O.P. No.2 i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the said policy was extended year to year. Lastly, the complainant deposited a Cheque of Rs. 6,744/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four Only) for the year 2017- 2018, vide Cheque No. 998035 dt. 28/08/2017.

It has been further stated that the complainant has a bank account being No. 336712084147 with the O.P. No.1 i.e. State Bank of India Rathbari Branch.  The complainant also opened an RD account with the same branch along with his wife bearing RD A/c. No. 37006425786 with a condition that every month Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only) is to be deducted from the Savings Bank Account having account No. 336712084147 and the same amount is to be deposited in the R D Bank Account.

It has been further stated that the complainant observed on 11/08/2017 a total amount of Rs. 14,164/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Only) is lying with the Savings Bank Account and on 12/08/2017 Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only) was transferred to the said R D Account as monthly deposit and the balance of the savings bank account remains Rs. 13,564/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Four Only). On 12/09/2017 more Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only) was deducted from the savings account of the complainant and the said amount is supposed to be deposited in the R D account and balance will be Rs. 12,794/-(Rupees Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Four Only) on 12/09/2017 in the S.B. account of the complainant. The complainant knowing it fully well about the balance in the savings bank account he issued a cheque baring No. 998035 dt. 28/08/2017 of Rs. 6,744/- Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four Only) in favour of O.P. No. 2 i.e. National Insurance Co. for yearly premium of the mediclaim bearing Policy No. 150700/48/17/8500000 820.

Unfortunately, the son of the complainant viz. Abhijit Saha fall in serious illness due to Dengu and he was then admitted to Sonoscan, Malda but for better treatment he was taken to Desun Hospital, Kolkata. After prolonged treatment by the grace of god his son became cured and discharged from Desun Hospital on 30/09/2017. But in the meantime the cheque was dishonoured and return to the complainant due to insufficient fund as such the mediclaim policy was not renewed. The complainant all knowing such fact updated his Pass Book and came to know that the O.P. No.1 intentionally and willfully made blunder to transfer Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only) per day on and from 13/08/2017 to 31/08/2017 instead of monthly transfer of Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only). Due to such wrongful act of the O.P. No.1 the Mediclaim Policy was not revived and this is the gross negligence on the part of the State Bank of India, Rathbari Branch. It is to be mentioned that the complainant incurred huge amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) or more due to his son’s treatment of Dengu  and the complainant claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) for medical expenses along with other compensation.

                 The petition has been contested by the State Bank of India Rathbari Branch and by National Insurance Company separately by filing separate written version.

                 The O.P. No.1 in its written version has denied all material allegation as levelled against the O.P. No.1 contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable according to law. The case is barred by law of limitation the case is bad for miss-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The case is barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence.

                 The definite defense case is that the A/c. No. 336712084147 is not lying with the State Bank of India Rathbari Branch in the name of the complainant and no deduction can be made as there was no such bank account in the name of the complainant with the O.P. No.1.

                 The further defense case is that the complainant is conscious about the monetary compensation of his account with the bank.

                 The further defense case is that there is no such mediclaim in the name of the complainant’s son and so Abhijit Saha is not entitled to get any kind of benefit.

                 The further case is that the complainant has joint RD Account with Mili Saha and monthly of Rs. 600/- is to be deposited in the RD Account from the A/c. No. 336712084147, But there is no account in the bank in the name of complainant in A/c. No. 336712084147. So considering such facts and circumstances dismissal of the case has been prayed for.

                 The defense case of the National Insurance Company is that the case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and the Insurance Company has been necessary party.

                 The definite defense case is that the complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 6,744/- (Rupees Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four Only) vide Cheque No. 998035 dt. 28/08/2017 in favour of O.P. No.2 for yearly premium but the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient fund as such the mediclaim was not renewed. Considering such fact the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                 In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant.

                 On the other hand neither the State Bank of India nor the Insurance Company adduce any evidence to their defense.

                 Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                 Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. State Bank of India Rathbari Branch submitted that there is no bank account with the branch as A/c. No. 336712084147 as such there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the bank as because the complainant is not a customer of the said bank.

The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P. further argued that in the Examination-in-Chief the complainant has mentioned the A/c. No. as 336712084147 and in cross-examination he has submitted that the petition of complaint as well as Examination-in-Chief was correctly typed as per his instruction and he has correctly mentioned the particulars as mentioned in his Examination-in-Chief and that Examination-in-Chief was supported by Affidavit and in his Examination-in-Chief he has categorically stated the Bank A/c. No. 336712084147.

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submits that through mistake the account number was typed as 336712084147 but it should be 36712084147. It was mere a mistake so the complainant has filed a petition for amendment today i.e. on the date of judgement. It is not understood why the complainant did not take any steps for filing any amendment petition for correction of the account number. Though in the notice we find the wrong number as 336712084147. It may be the fact that there may be a mistake but why the complainant did not call for any report from the Bank Authority to show that there was no such direction for deduction of Rs.600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only)per day and it was a direction for deduction of Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred Only)per month. Definitely it is the latches and negligence on the part of the complainant.

Next point is to be considered whether the amendment petition is to be considered on the date of final order. In view of the decision of the National Commission reported in Consumer Protection Reporter at Page 174 wherein the Hon’ble National Commission in the case R.K. Singhal Vs. M/s. Sudrad Construciton Pvt. Ltd. held that application for amendment as filed at the stage of final hearing should not have been allowed so that the step prayer for amendment cannot be allowed at the belated stage.

It is to be mentioned that the case is pending since 2017. Now today is 2021. So definitely there was a long latches on the part of the complainant. The complainant as well as the Ld.Lawyer should be sincere in filing such matter when the case is dependent on the basis of the account number.                               

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

 the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. without any  cost.

Let a copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.