Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready. It is pronounced in open Commission in 4 pages 2 separate sheet of paper. 

SRI  ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT.

Facts of the Complainant’s are that the Complainant is a Citizen of India by birth having the permanent residence at the above noted address which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant is a reputed doctor practicing at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur and the Ops are involved in the business of selling various sorts of insurance policies throughout India as well as the local area of the Complainant.  At the request of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant took two policies namely “Bajaj Allianz Life POS Goal Suraksha” bearing No. 0464241054 commencing from 15.07.2021 and 041242413 commencing from 28.10.2021 having regular Premium of Rs. 1,02,250/-(Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) per year inclusive of all charges. Though the Complainant is duly paying the due premiums in due times, the Ops are deducting some premiums illegally in the midst of the tenure and thereafter the same is being refunded after holding the money for some days and at last on 01.12.2022, the amount of Rs. 1,02,250/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) has been deducted from the account of the Complainant illegally. The Complainant informed the matter of illegal & irregular deduction of the amount from the account of the complainant to the Ops but they are not paying any heed to that matter. The Complainant states that the Ops are deducting the money illegally and irregularly in order to gain illegal profit which is too much intentional and malafide. Because of such illegal & irregular deduction of amount from the account of the Complainant, several cheques are being dishonored in respect of the said account of the Complainant and as a result of such dishonor, not only the Complainant is bound to bear penalty charges for such dishonor, several EMI bounced, HDFC Recovery Team came to the house of the Complainant which spoiled the reputation of the Complainant, civil score is being deteriorated, all loan applications have been rejected by the concerned banks and all future plans have gone in vein which has affected the Complainant in various ways and suffered huge loss. This sorts of attitude of the Ops itself demonstrates unfair trade practice and misconduct on the part of the Ops. The Complainant submits that the Ops in connivance with each other, are running these sorts of unfair trade practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the complainant without thinking the fact that because of such illegal activities, the Complainant may suffer huge loss in regarding his profession. Thus, the Ops are professing great misconduct to provide good service to the Complainant thereby causing unfair trade practice ad for that unfair trade practice and misconduct on the part of the Ops the Complainant has suffered a lot including professional, mental and financial harassment. The Complainant states that the above mentioned matter clearly depicts unfair & deceitful trade practice on the part of the Ops which has caused unnecessary mental agony and stress on the Complainant. The cause of action of the complaint arose on & from 01.12.2022 and thus the instant complaint is filed within the prescribed period in terms of the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Complaint is made bonafide and for the ends of justice. There is no other suit/case pending nor has been decided on the same subject matter between the parties by any competent court of law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant most humbly prays for the following reliefs. To direct the Ops jointly and severally to return Rs. 1,02,250/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) in favour of the Complainant as early as possible if not refunded till disposal of this case To direct the Ops to pay the exemplary compensation of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Only) the Complainant for unfair & deceitful trade practice on the part of the Ops and also for harassment, financial loss, mental pain & agony suffered by the Complainant. To direct the Ops to pay the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in favour of the Complainant, such other reliefs as the Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

        Notices were served upon all the ops- 1 ,2& 3.  The ops have not appeared to contest the case as such the proceeding of the case runs exparte against ops- 1, 2 & 3.

Points for determination are:

 1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?

2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

                                                                                        Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the complaint on affidavit, evidence of the complainant  and the documents on record.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the of Ld. Advocate for the complainant .

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that  complainant is a consumer having grievances against the OPs, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On careful analysis and evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it appears that the complainant has failed to prove the averments made para- 5 of the complaint that he informed  the matter of illegal and irregular deduction to the ops. It is also evident that  the complainant has not sent any notice to the ops in writing informing his grievances ; there is no instance of repudiation of his any claim or grievances on the part of the ops. It appears that both the policy will mature in the year 2036. last premiums to be paid up to 2027. From the bundle of facts it would appear that no cause of action has arisen as yet against the ops. The complainant has not filed any copy of the form in which he opted or mandated for ECS by post dated cheque or by auto debit system. It could not be ascertained who is the intermediary to collect the premium through  auto debit to fix the liability. It is the burden of the complainant to prove all his allegations by furnishing cogent evidence. It has been averred that the Ops are deducting some premiums illegally in the midst of the tenure and thereafter the same is being refunded after holding the money for some days and at last on 01.12.2022, the amount of Rs. 1,02,250/- (Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) has been deducted from the account of the Complainant illegally or the Complainant informed the matter of illegal & irregular deduction of the amount from the account of the complainant to the Ops but they are not paying any heed to that matter. The complainant has not been able to prove the above aspects through cogent documentary evidence save and except his testimony. There is also no evidence to show that  the Complainant was bound to bear penalty charges for such dishonor, several EMI bounced, HDFC Recovery Team came to the house of the Complainant which spoiled the reputation of the Complainant, CIBIL score is being deteriorated, all loan applications have been rejected by the concerned banks and all future plans have gone in vein which has affected the Complainant in various ways and suffered huge loss. It has been alleged that the HDFC Recovery Team came to the house of the Complainant which spoiled the reputation of the Complainant ; HDFC  is best person to answer the said allegation but the complainant has not made it as a party in this case. Rather, it has been informed that HDFC had already issued a Cheque amounting to Rs.1,04,920/- in the name of the complainant. It has also been mentioned in the loan rejection information dated 22.11.22 that Please be assured that our inability to approve the loan application does not reflect on your credit standing or your financial stability.  The above assurance means that loan was rejected not for credit standing or  financial stability. Had the complainant made HDFC a party in this case the substance of allegations of the complainant could be ascertained properly.  The ICICI Bank is also shown dealt with the transaction in the matter in issue  , it has also not been made party in this case. With a view to fix the liability all the above banks should have been asked to explain their rule also. It has been informed as per note made in the receipt dated.02.12 2022 that refund has also been made.  The complainant has failed to prove any element of unfair Trade practice or deficiency in service against the ops. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

         Both the points are disposed of accordingly..

        The case does not succeed

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/02 of 2023 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the Ops. No order of costs is passed.      

 Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.