BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, EAST SIKKIM AT GANGTOK

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.01 OF 2020

{PRESENT:-           1. Prajwal Khatiwada, President

                                                 2. Anita Shilal, Member

                                                       3. Rohit Kumar Pradhan, Member}

Smt. Nawang Doma Bhutia,

   W/o Shri Karma Bhutia,

   R/o Bojoghari,

   Gangtok, East Sikkim

                                                                                      ....Complainant

                                                          -Versus-

     1. The Chief Manager,

         State Bank of India,

       PO & PS Gangtok, East Sikkim

     2. The SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

         Through its Branch Manager,

       First Floor Sanjay Mansion,

       Amdogolai, Near SNT Weigh Bridge,

       PO Tadong, PS Gangtok, East Sikkim

                                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

FOR THE COMPLAINANT  : Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Dhungel &                                                                   Ms. Hemlata Sharma

FOR THE OPPOSITE                         :  Ld. Counsel Shri J.K.Chandak

PARTY NO.1                

FOR THE OPPOSITE            :  Ld. Counsel Shri Leonard

PARTY NO.2                                  Gurung         

O-R-D-E-R

1. This is to decide the complaint filed by the complainant claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties (OPs). She has, accordingly, prayed for compensation/damages under various heads.
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that she is a government employee and a resident of Bojoghari, Gangtok, East Sikkim. She maintains a savings bank account with the OP No.1  bank being account No.11018782588. Sometime during the year 2013, she had obtained a housing loan from the OP No.1 bank to the tune of ₹ 15,00,000/-. The loan account number in that regard was 33293288918. The said loan amount was to be repaid through equated monthly installments(EMI) of ₹ 17,000/- per month which amount was debited from her above savings bank account.
3. According to the complainant, while obtaining the above loan she was also made to sign on many papers by the OP No.1 as per the usual banking practices. She was made to obtain a RIN Raksha policy issued by the OP No.2 insuring the above loan. The annual premium of ₹ 10,062/- in that regard was debited from her savings bank account above which, she was told by the OPs, was the one-time premium amount.
4. The complainant would aver that she cleared the above loan by 19.05.2017 and was duly issued a no due certificate(Exhibit 1) in that regard by the OP No.1. However, on 07.06.2019 an amount of ₹ 40,248/-(Rupees Forty thousand two hundred and forty-eight) only was suddenly deducted/debited from her above savings account without any prior intimation to her. She panicked and thereafter approached the OP No.1 who told her that it would look into the matter. Subsequently, she approached the OP No.2 but to no avail. On 09.07.2019, an amount of ₹ 14,428/- was surreptitiously credited back to her account. It was only later that she came to know that the above amount of ₹ 40,248/- had actually been deducted towards the annual premium amounts supposedly due on account of the above insurance policy which she had been compelled to obtain while securing the loan from the OP No.1. According to her, no such deductions had been made in respect of the said insurance policy while the loan was still subsisting. As such the OPs could not have debited it.
5. The complainant would, accordingly, claim that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. She would thus claim compensation/damages/reliefs as follows:-

                  (a) Refund of ₹ 25,800/- with 12% interest w.e.f 07.06.2019 till full payment;

                  (b) ₹ 1,00,000/- towards compensation for physical stress, mental agony and harassment suffered by her and her family members in the matter;

                  (c) ₹ 5,00,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practices adopted by the OP No.1 in illegally debiting the above amount of ₹ 40,248/- from her savings bank account without prior intimation and consent; and

                  (d) ₹ 1,00,000/- towards cost of proceedings, advocate fee and incidental expenses.

6. According to the complainant, the cause of action for filing the present complaint first arose on 07.06.2019 when the above amount of ₹ 40,248/- was debited from her savings bank account. It has thereafter been continuing within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
7. The OPs appeared in the matter and filed their respective written versions in the matter. They would assail the complaint on various grounds. The OP No.1 would claim that it had no role whatsoever in debiting the above amount from the savings bank account of the complainant. Instead, it was done by the OP No.2. The OP No.2, on its part, would claim that the above amount was received towards the annual premium amounts due on account of the concerned insurance policy(for which the complainant had herself authorised the auto-debiting of the premium amounts from her savings bank account). The annual premium for the policy was to be paid for five years, however, only the premium for the first year was paid by the complainant. The OPs would, accordingly, pray for dismissal of the complaint.
8. The following points were framed for determination after hearing the parties through their Counsel and on careful consideration of their pleadings as well as the various documents filed in the matter. The onus of proof was fixed accordingly:-

1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?(opc)

2) Whether the amount of Rs.40,248/-(Rupees Forty thousand two hundred and forty-eight) only was wrongly debited by the OPs, particularly the OP No.1, from the savings bank account of the complainant?(opc)

3) Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?(opc)

4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her?(opc)

9. The complainant examined herself and two other witnesses in support of her case. The other witnesses examined by her are her husband Karma Bhutia(CW2) and Ms. Dawa Phuti Bhutia(CW3) who would support her case. The OP No.1 examined its Chief Manager Tathagata Halder(D₁W₁) while the OP No.2 examined its Area Manager & Head Rajesh Biswakarma(D₂W₁).
10. After the parties closed their evidence, their Ld. Counsel were heard on arguments.
11.  It may be mentioned here that the matter was considerably delayed owing to the prevalent situation arising due to COVID-19. Part-proceedings were conducted through video-conferencing.
12. Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Dhungel, appearing for the complainant, mostly reiterated the submissions of the complainant above. According to him, the complainant has been able to prove a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The evidence and materials put forward by her would clearly establish her case.
13. It was also contended by Shri Dhungel that though the OP No.2 claims that the concerned deduction of ₹ 40,248/- from the savings bank account of the complainant was on account of the annual premium amounts due in respect of the RIN Raksha policy obtained by her, no deductions or auto-deductions were made while the loan was still subsisting. It was much later that the above amount was suddenly debited from the savings bank account of the complainant without any prior notice and consent. According to Shri Dhungel, even if any premium amounts were due on account of the insurance policy that too for almost four years, such insurance ought to have been regarded as being dormant. As such the above debit was unjustified.
14. Shri Dhungel also invited our attention to the various terms and conditions of the Master Policy document in respect of the above insurance policy and submitted that in view of condition 6.1 therein if the premiums are not paid within the grace period the life cover of the insured would cease. As such when the premiums had become due after the first year and when no payment was made in that regard by the complainant the OP No.2 ought to have closed the insurance policy and should have given the surrender benefit to the complainant. It is thus clear that there has been gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 as well as the OP No.1.
15. Ld. Counsel(s) for the OPs, on the other hand, contended that no case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been made out by the complainant. It was contended that as the complainant had herself authorised the auto-debiting of the premium amounts from her savings bank account above vide the concerned auto-debit mandate form comprised in the insurance proposal form (Exhibit A2), the consequent debiting of the amount due on account of the annual premiums for four years cannot be faulted with. As such the question of any deficiency in service would not arise.
16. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forward by the Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence/materials placed before us.
17. The points for determination above shall be taken up together.
18. As seen above, it has been the case of the complainant that the amount of ₹ 40,248/- was suddenly deducted from her savings bank account maintained with the OP No.1 on 07.06.2019. She was not given any prior intimation in that regard by the OP No.1. According to her, the OPs could initially not give any explanation for such deduction. Subsequently, after repeated visits to their office, particularly the office of the OP No.1, an amount of ₹ 14,428/- was surreptitiously refunded/credited to her account on 09.07.2019. It was only later that she came to know that the above amount of ₹ 40,248/- had been deducted towards the annual premium amounts supposedly due on account of the Rin Raksha Policy which she had been compelled to obtain while securing the concerned loan above from the OP No.1. The complainant would claim that as she had already cleared the concerned loan by 19.05.2017 and since no such deductions had been made while the loan was subsisting, the OPs could not have deducted it that too in the manner above. The OP No.1, on its part, would claim that it has no role in the debiting of the above amount from the savings bank account of the complainant which, as per it, was done by the OP No.2. The OP No.2, on the other hand, would claim that it received the above amount towards the annual premium amounts due on account of the above policy. It is, in fact, worthwhile to mention here that it has come on record that while obtaining the above policy the complainant had signed the auto-debit/deduction mandate comprised in the concerned insurance proposal form. Though for the reasons best known to her she did not file the copy of the said form before this Commission, it was the OP No.2 who rightly filed the said form comprising the concerned auto-debit mandate form. On being confronted, she would herself identify the same before us i.e., Exhibit A2(in 04 pages)(during her cross-examination by the OP No.1). A perusal of the concerned insurance proposal form comprising the auto-debit mandate and the other documents filed by the OP No.2 before this Commission relating to the concerned insurance policy would indicate that it was the complainant herself who had authorised the auto-debit of the annual premium of ₹ 10,062/- towards the above policy from her above savings bank account. She would herself categorically admit the same during her cross-examination by the OP No.1. In particular, she would admit that she had signed the mandate for auto-debit/deduction of the annual premium amount(s) in respect of the above RIN Raksha Policy from her savings bank account maintained with the OP No.1 bank. According to her, she had authorised the OP No.2(SBI Life Insurance) to deduct it and the auto-debit mandate is the fourth page comprised in Exhibit A2. She would also admit during her cross-examination that the first annual premium for the policy was directly deducted from her savings bank account. Once all these admissions have come on record from the complainant herself we do not think any case of deficiency or irregularity is made out against the OPs. Though it was contended on behalf of the complainant that as no auto-deductions towards the annual premium amount were made while the loan was still subsisting and as such the insurance policy is to be regarded as being dormant we do not find force in the said submissions. Once the complainant had herself authorised the auto-debit of the annual premium amount(s) from her savings bank account(which was to be paid for the next four years as the premium schedule was for a total of five years) it would be the OP No.2's prerogative to have it deducted as per its convenience, moreso, when there were no predetermined dates for such deductions and when it is not a case where the complainant had evinced the desire to surrender the policy or to discontinue with it while the loan was subsisting. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the Ld. Counsel for the complainant had even taken us through the Master Policy document in respect of the above insurance policy, which incidentally was filed by the OP No.2, while contending that in view of condition 6.1 therein if the premiums are not paid within the grace period the life cover of the insured would cease. As such, it was contended, when the concerned premium had become due after the first year and when no payment was made in that regard by the complainant the OP No.2 ought to have closed the insurance policy and given the surrender benefit to the complainant. Again, we are not impressed with these arguments. As mentioned above, once the complainant had herself given the auto-debit mandate it was the prerogative of the OP No.2 to have the concerned premium amounts debited from her savings bank account. The condition 6.1 above in the Master Policy document has to be therefore read along with the auto-debit mandate form. It should be noted that by submitting an auto-debit mandate form one authorises an auto-debit transaction and there is no need or requirement for payment of premium by other means. Once there is a mandate for auto-debit premium it is to be automatically deducted from the concerned bank account and the course adopted in that regard cannot be faulted with. We may refer to the case of Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Appellant v. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Respondents III (2021) CPJ 248 (UT Chd.) in this context.
19. As a matter of fact, we find that to its credit the OP No.2 subsequently refunded an amount of ₹ 14,428/- out of the above amount of ₹ 40,248/- as, according to it, the complainant had requested for surrendering the insurance cover. It may, however, be mentioned here that although such claims with regard to the surrender of policy would be made by the OP No.2 at paragraph 4 of its written version, no document in that regard has been put forward by it. Further, its witness Rajesh Biswakarma would also not whisper anything in that regard in his evidence-on-affidavit(Exhibit AA). It is also strange that the complainant would not put any questions to the above witness in that regard. Be that as it may, since the said course adopted by the OP No.2 has not been challenged before us by the complainant we do not consider it necessary to go into it.
20. The points for determination above are, accordingly, decided in the negative. Resultantly, the complaint stands dismissed being sans merit. No costs.

       PRONOUNCED

      (Anita Shilal)                (Rohit Kumar Pradhan)            (Prajwal Khatiwada)            

           Member                               Member                                                            President

    DCDRC(E) at Gangtok       DCDRC(E) at Gangtok                 DCDRC(E) at Gangtok                                 

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT

01.        CW1     -  Nawang Doma Bhutia(Complainant)

02.        CW2     -  Karma Bhutia

03.        CW3  -  Dawa Phuti Bhutia

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE COMPLAINANT

01.        Exhibit 1    - Copy of no due certificate

02.        Exhibit 2    - Screenshot of mobile text message

03.        Exhibit 3    -     Statements of account

04.        Exhibit 4    -     Copy of application dated 10.06.2019

05.        Exhibit 5    -  Screenshots of Whatsapp conversations

06.        Exhibit 6    -  Copy of application dated 31.07.2009

07.        Exhibit 7    -  Copy of email print-out

08.        Exhibit 8    -     -do-

09.        Exhibit 9    -  Certified copy of application dated 07.08.2019

10.        Exhibit 10  -    Certified copy of letter dated 20.08.2019

11.        Exhibit 11  -  Certified copy of letter dated 24.04.2019

12.        Exhibit 12  -    Evidence-on-affidavit of CW1

13.        Exhibit 13  -    Evidence-on-affidavit of CW2

14.        Exhibit 14  -    Evidence-on-affidavit of CW3

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

01. D₁W₁ -        Tathagata Halder

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

01. Exhibit A1  –   Copy of computer general details regarding d                                        eduction

02. Exhibit A3  –  Evidence-on-affidavit of  D₁W₁ 

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

01. D₂W₁ -        Rajesh Biswakarma

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

01. Exhibit A2  –   Copy of insurance proposal form including auto-                                       debit mandate form

02. Exhibit AA –   Evidence-on-affidavit of  D₂W₁

   Anita Shilal)                (Rohit Kumar Pradhan)                (Prajwal Khatiwada)            

           Member                               Member                                                            President

    DCDRC(E) at Gangtok      DCDRC(E) at Gangtok                 DCDRC(E) at Gangtok