CC. filed on:29.06.2015

 Disposed on: 20.07.2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JULY –  2016

CC. No. 72 OF 2015

:PRESENT:

SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL LLM. PRESIDENT,

SRI. D. SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB,  MEMBER

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

Nandishappa .H S/o Honnappa

Aged about 65 years,

R/o Basavapatna Village,

Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,

Honnaganga Petroleum,

Chelur Gubbi Taluk.

(By Sri/Smt.  B.C.Shivakumar - Advocate)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTY/IES

1.       The Deputy Manager,

          Policy Servicing,

          State Bank of India

          Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,

          Central Processing Centre,

          Plot No.3A, Campus Bhavan,

          CBD Belapur,

          NAVI, Mumbai – 400 614.

2.       Vikas Kumar,

          Bank Manager,

          State Bank of  Mysore

          University Branch,

          Tumakuru.

3.       The Manager,

          State Bank of Mysore,

          Chelur Branch,

          Chelur, Gubbi Taluk,

          Tumkur District.

(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt.  G.S. Narayana -  Advocate)

(OP Nos. 2 & 3 By Sri/Smt. Vazeer Ahamed K. H -  Advocate)

:-O R D E R:-

SRI. D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH - MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPS alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPS and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 18% P.A. and Rs.15,000/- towards damages and cost in the interest of justice and equity.

The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-

2.       The OP No.1 issued a policy to the complainant vide No.24024895005 during the year 2007 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant has to pay a sum of  Rs.25,000/- per year towards the premium and the OP No.2 had debited a sum of Rs.25,000/- every year from the complainant’s bank account and thereby the complainant is not a defaulter. 

          The complainant further submitted that the said policy was issued to the complainant by one Vikash Kumar who was working as a clerk from 2006 to 2012 and further the OP No.2 was transferred as Branch Manager to the University Branch, Tumakuru.  The complainant further submitted that the OP No.2 had played fraud when he was at SBM, Chelur branch without debiting the policy premium amount from complainant’s account though the complainant was maintaining his account with substantial funds and also the complainant has given through previous instructions to the SBM to debit the same from his account.

          The complainant further submitted that the OP has issued reminder letter on 30/07/2014 stating that the complainant had not paid the premium amount from 29/08/2010 and the policy of the complainant moved into exist status and the policy status stands canceled and the amount will be refunded.  Thereafter the complainant enquired about the same with the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 informed the complainant that his policy moved in to exists status and the policy status stands cancelled and further informed that they will pay only Rs.25,928/- to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the OPs on 10/11/2014 calling upon them to pay the amount of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% P.A.  The OP No.1 replied the notice evasively by making some false allegations without paying the amount and the OP No2 has not replied to the legal notice.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.   

 3.      In spite of service of version notice, the OPs appeared through their counsels and filed separate versions.

The OP No.1 in his version has stated that the complainant is disputing the terms and conditions of the policy which was issued in August 2007 and the cause of action arisen if any in August 2007 and the complaint is filed after a gap of more than 7 years, hence the complaint is barred by limitation.  The disputed policy has already been terminated and the terminated refund amount has been paid in accordance to the terms and conditions of the policy, but the complainant is now complaining about the terms and conditions of the policy and the same is not maintainable and thereby the complaint is barred by limitation within the meaning of Section 24-A of the C.P.Act and further the complainant has not filed any application for condition of delay  and hence the complaint is also barred by limitation. 

          The OP No.1 further submitted that the policy was issued as per the proposal form signed by the complainant and the policy of the complainant was terminated due to non-payment of renewal premium and the terminated refund value was paid as per the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          The OP No.1 further submitted that the policy issued to the complainant is an unit linked policy wherein the premium paid by the policyholders will be invested in the capital market and any appreciation or depreciation in the fund value will have to be borne by the policyholders and the features and terms and conditions of the said insurance policy was duly approved by the IRDA and the OP acted strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1. 

          The OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant after going through the point No.12 of the proposal form obtained the policy and thereby the complainant after consenting the terms and conditions of the policy has obtained the policy.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the complainant has paid three premiums under the policy and thereby the complainant is entitled for Rs.25,928.9943 as on 28/04/2014.

          The OP No.1 further submitted that the fund value of the policy is dependent on the performance of the capital markets and the company does not have any control over these forces and the premium was invested as per the choice exercised by the policyholder and the company just invested these funds in deference to the wishes of the policyholder and the action of the company is very much in order and the same is just and legal and thereby the OP No.1 has acted fairly and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the OP No.1 is not liable for any other payment under the policy and hence among other grounds it was requested to dismiss the complaint.

          The OP No.2 in his version has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and the complainant has filed the frivolous complaint against the OP with baseless facts. 

          The OP No.2 further submitted that the complaint is not disputed except the allegation that the SBM had to debit a sum of Rs.25,000/- every year from the complainant’s Bank Account and the complainant has not given any such instructions to the Bank to remit the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the insurance premium. 

          The OP No.2 further submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as the OP No.2 has not received any remuneration either from the complainant or from OP No.1 and he was working as an employee under the SBM.  The OP No.2 further submitted that it is the fundamental duty of the complainant to verify that whether his bank account has been debited regularly or not and to give proper instructions to the Bank concerned to debit the insurance premium and thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2 and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim for any compensation from this OP in any manner and that among other grounds the OP No.2 requested to dismiss the complaint.

          The OP No.3 in his version has stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The OP No.3 further submitted that the complainant has not given any instructions to the Bank to debit the account of the complainant and remit the amount of  Rs.25,000/-  towards the insurance premium. 

          The OP No.3 further submitted that the OP No.3 has not committed any deficiency of service as it is the fundamental duty of the complainant to verify that whether his bank account has been debited regularly towards payment of insurance premium and it is the gross negligence of the complainant in not verifying the statement of account periodically and to give proper standing instructions to the Bank concerned to debit the insurance premium and thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3 and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity.    

4.       Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence to support their respective cases. The complainant marked the documents produced by him at Ex.C1 to C6, whereas the OPS have marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R8.  Heard the arguments, and then posted the case for orders.

5.       Based on the above materials, the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPS as alleged by the complainant?

3. What Order?   

6.       Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No (1)          :        In the Negative

Issue No (2)          :        Partly in the Affirmative

Issue No (3)                    :        As per final order below

                          :-REASONS:-

Issue No.1:-

7.       The Advocate appearing for the OP No.1 has contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as the cause of action took place on August 2007.  As against this Advocate appearing for the complainant submitted that the claim of the complainant is not settled in spite of repeated requests.

8.       A perusal of the pleadings and documents of both the parties, the OP No.1 has stated in his affidavit at Para 18 that the fund value as on 28/04/2014 was Rs.25,928/- . Had various charges were deducted from the fund value by canceling the units the fund value would be gone below Rs.25,000/- and the policy moved into terminated refund status.  The same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 29/04/2014/Ex.R5.  Per-contra, the complainant stated at the time of arguments that on the receipt of the above said letter the complainant has astonished and enquired about the same with the OP No.1 and till then the complainant has no knowledge about the issue.  Therefore, we feel that the cause of action starts form that date.  Hence, complaint is within time.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.

Issue Nos. (2) & (3):-

9.       The case of the complainant is that though he has given standing instruction to OP Nos. 2 & 3 to remit Rs.25,000/- to OP No.1 with regard to policy from the account of the complainant it is with the OP No.3. But the OP No.2 & 3 have failed to do so though there was sufficient balance in his account and thereby the policy of the complainant got lapsed and due to the deficiency of service of OP Nos. 2 & 3 the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.   On the other hand, the OP No.3 contended that the complainant has to give standing instruction in a specific format.  In this regard the OP No.3 has produced the document which is marked at Ex.R7 that is model of the standing instructions copy, and at the time of arguments, he disputed the signature of the standing instructions letter. But the OP no.3 did not made any efforts to disprove the same.

10.     We have perused the letter/Ex.C8 issued by the complainant and also Ex.R7.  The OP No.3 has acknowledged the letter/Ex.C8 given by the complainant.  The OP No.3 at the time of arguments submitted that the complainant should be given standing instruction to remit the premium with regard to policy in a specific format as produced in Ex.R7. No doubt, the OP No.3 has acknowledged the letter given by the complainant and also remitted the premium amount of Rs.25,000/- for three years to OP No.1.  When such being the case, what prevents the OP No.3 to intimate the complainant to give a standing instruction in a specific format instead of acknowledging the letter given by the complainant.  After acknowledging the letter by the OP No.3 the OP No.3 has not taken any steps to take standing instruction from the complainant in a specific format.  Hence, we are of the opinion it is not just and proper on the side of the OP No.3 now to come and say before this Forum that the complainant has to give standing instruction in a specific format.  Therefore, looking from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3.       

11.     The OP No.2 in his objection submitted that he has not committed any deficiency of service to the complainant as the complainant is not a consumer to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has not received any remuneration either from the complainant or from OP No.1 and he was working as an employee under the SBM from 25/02/2002 to 07/08/2010 as a clerk.  On perusal of the letter issued by the complainant that is at Ex-C8,  it is seen that the OP No.2 has not acknowledged the same and the complainant has not produced any specific evidence to show that the OP No.2 has committed deficiency of service in not remitting the amount to the OP No.1.  Moreover, the OP No.2 has not acknowledged the letter of the complainant and it is acknowledged by the OP No.3.  Further, the complainant alleged that policy was issued to the complainant through a person namely Vikas Kumar i.e OP No.2 who was working as a clerk from 2006 to 2012.  On the other, the OP No.2 has stated that he was working as an employee under the State Bank of Mysore from 25/02/2002 to 07/08/2010. No doubt, the policy was issued in the year 2007 and the three premiums towards the policy have been remitted to OP No.1. The OP No.2 has worked in the said branch upto 7-8-2010. Moreover as per the OP no.1, the premium due on 29-8-2010, then how the complainant alleged deficiency of service against OP No.2.  Further, the complainant alleged that the OP No.2 was working as a clerk in the said branch upto 2012, but the complainant has not produced any supporting documents to prove his contention.  Further, the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service against OP No.2 as the complainant has not given standing instruction letter to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has not acknowledge the same.  Hence, on the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2.

12.     Further, at the time of arguments, the Advocate of the complainant submitted that even today the complainant is ready to pay the up-to date premium amount to regularize the policy, but he is not ready to pay the other charges as the policy was lapsed due to deficiency of service on the part of OP Nos. 2 & 3.  No doubt, there is deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3 due to non paying the premiums in time to OP No.1.  In the case on hand, there is no fault on the side of the complainant.  Due to deficiency of OP No.3 the policy of the complainant got lapsed.  Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OP No.1 to regularize the policy of the complainant after collecting up-to date premiums from him as the complainant should not be suffered due to deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3. Hence,  it is just and proper to direct the OP No.3 to pay if any other charges imposed by the OP No.1 to regularize the policy of the complainant.  Further, due to deficiency of service the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Hence, it is just and proper to direct the OP No.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation/damages.  Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:- ORDER:-

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
2. The OP No.1 is directed to continue the policy of the complainant bearing No.24024895005 after receiving up-to date premiums from the complainant.
3. The OP No.3 is directed to pay if any other charges imposed by the OP No.1 towards continuing the policy of the complainant.
4. The OP No.3 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation/damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
5. The complaint filed against the 2^nd OP is hereby dismissed.
6. The OPs are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.
7. Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20^th Day of JULY 2016).

LADY MEMBER                  MEMBER                  PRESIDENT