- Bharat Qumar Nandy,
64, Kavi Bharati Sarani, Kolkata-700029. ______ Complainant
___Versus___
- The General Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sunadaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites House, Channai-600014.
- Milan Naik, Head-Distributor Partners,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sunadaram Towers, 45 & 46 Whites House, Channai-600014.
- The Regional General Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
1, Rowdon Street, Kolkata-700016, P.S. Shakeapeare Sarani. _______ Opposite Party
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 42 Dated 10-02-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant and his family consist of complainant, his wife and only daughter and to safe guard from future medical expenses he did a mediclaim policy namely Healthy shield Policy being no.HD00000765000100 with the o.p. for his entire family and paid regularly the required premium amounting to Rs.16,693/- of the said policy to the o.p.
By a letter dt. 29.5.08 o.p. informed the complainant that the policy of the complainant stands cancelled due to dishonour of cheque no.438658 dt.16.5.08 for Rs.16,693/- for the reason as shown in the bank statement “Drawers signature Differ” moreover the o.p. demanded to return the original policy and also claim a sum of Rs.16,893/- (including bank charges of Rs.200/-) by cash / DD/ Pay order to enable to issue as fresh policy in favour of the complainant.
On receiving the said letter dt.29.5.08 the complainant by a letter dt.26.6.08 informed the o.p. no.2 to continue the policy by expunging the name of his daughter Ms Papiya Halder as she is residing abroad at Brussels, Belgium, and the complainant may take a fresh policy when she will return from abroad though the policy was not valid abroad and for such circumstances the complainant enclosed a demand draft for a sum of Rs.12,000/- vide DD No.894150 dt.26.6.08 towards renewal of said policy in the name of Bharat Qumar Nandy the complainant and her wife Ms. Raka Nandy by excluding the name of Papiya Halder and also asked them to let him know if the amount of DD is less than the required premium then the complainant is ready to remit the same.
By an e-mail dt.23.7.08 o.p. informed the complainant that they are unable to delete the name of Papiya Halder as the complainant and his wife is more than 60 years of age and further more they have forwarded the request of the complainant to the concerned department regarding the status of the DD sent by the complainant while the o.p. encashed the said DD on 3.7.08 as per statement of SBI Xerox copy of the said reply by e-mail dt.23.7.08 is annexed with the petition of complaint as annex-C-2 of this complaint.
In spite of repeated request for renewal of the policy by deleting the name of Papiya Halder from the policy of the complainant and to issue a fresh policy in the name of complainant and his wife but o.p. deliberately avoided to do the same and ultimately the complainant compelled to serve a demand notice dt.4.9.08 through his lawyer. Xerox copy of the said letter dt.4.9.08, a postal receipt and the A/D card is annexed herewith as annex-E, E-1 & E-2 of this complaint petition. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that a Health Shield Insurance Policy in favour of the complainant was issued after receiving a cheque of Rs.16,893/- from the complainant. But the said cheque was bounced and as such, the o.ps. cancelled the said mediclaim policy. The O.ps. informed the complainant about this vide their letter dt.29.5.08 and requested the complainant to send Rs.16,893/- along with bank charge Rs.200/-. The complainant did not comply the above mentioned requirement rather on 26.6.08 sent a DD of Rs.12,000/- with a request to delete the name of his daughter from the policy. No fresh proposal form has been submitted by the complainant. The sum of Rs.12,000/- was refunded to the complainant as the o.ps. would not cover the complainant excluding his daughter as the proposer (complainant) and his wife had already crossed the age of 60 years. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular.
It is admitted that that complainant took a mediclaim policy from o.ps. viz. Health Shield Policy being no. HD00000765000100 and the required premium was Rs.16,693/-. It is also admitted fact that complainant sent a letter dt.26.6.08 informed the o.p. no.2 to continue the policy by expunging the name of his daughter Ms. Papiya Halder and enclosed a DD a sum of Rs.12,000/-, towards renewal of the said policy. O.ps. informed the complainant vide their letter 23.7.08 that they are unable to delete the name of Papiya Halder as the complainant and his wife is more than 60 years old. Accordingly, they have refunded Rs.12,000/- to the complainant which was sent by the complainant towards the renewal of the policy expunging the name of his daughter. That amount was received by the complainant. O.ps. have cancelled the mediclaim policy of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance company. So there was no valid contract between the insurance company and the complainant after the cancellation of the aforesaid policy. So no question of negligence and deficiency arises on the part of o.ps.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
