Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/43

Abhay Ranjan Prasad Srivastava - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, SBI General Insurance CO. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

1.         Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay claim for Rs. 9900/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 18.03.2017 and for order to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2.         Complainant’s case in brief is that firstly he purchased family floater insurance policy No. 00000000026273401 commencing from 18.03.2016 to 17.03.2017 on payment of Rs. 9000/- premium from his Account No. 32778408564 covering him, his wife and one child. Further case is that later-on in the year 2017 on payment of premium, policy No. 0000000006406136 was issued, on premium of Rs. 9900/- paid electronically from the same savings bank account of the complainant. Further case is that after perusal of subsequent policy complainant found that instead of  renewal of previous policy new policy  has been opened disclosing his wrong name and concealing the name of his wife and child, then he realized that he has been cheated by the O.Ps., hence he made request vide letter dt. 23.09.2017 for correction of mistake but no action was taken. It is further case that in spite of repeated request his grievance was not settled hence he approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance with prayer as mentioned above.
3.          O.Ps. appeared and they have filed W.S. mentioning therein that earlier policy was family floater policy and subsequent policy was new policy on submission of fresh application form by the complainant. Further case is that as per norms just after receipt of the policy papers it is required for the complainant to raise objection if any for correction within stipulated period which has not been done rather after expiry of the terms of the policy concerned this case has been filed. As per W.S. facts mentioned in para 1,2 of the complaint petition have been admitted. In respect to the facts related to para 3,4,5 and 10 of the complaint petition no comment has been made, in this way the contents of these paras shall also be treated as admitted because there is no specific denial . Rest of the facts have been denied.
4.         Only point in controversy is whether policy No. 0000000006406136 is in continuation to the previous policy No. 00000000026273401 or whether subsequent policy No. 0000000006406136 is a new policy dully applied and opened on request of the complainant ? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?  
5.         In support of the contents of the complaint, complainant has filed copy of letter dt. 23.09.2017 written to O.P. for rectification of defect in the policy No. 0000000006406136, copy of second policy paper, copy of card issued in respect to second policy, copy of first policy paper and copy of card issued in respect to first policy.
6.         On behalf of  O.Ps. copy of letter dt. 18.03.2016 issued in favour of the complainant in respect to first policy and copy of papers as well as terms and conditions related to first policy, copy of policy opening form related to second policy, copy of  letter dt. 18.03.2017 issued in favour of the complainant in respect to second policy and copy of the certificate of insurance related to second policy have been filed.
7.         On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that the fact related to opening of first policy which was family floater policy is not in dispute. Coverage of the first policy was in respect to complainant Abhay Ranjan Prasad Srivastava, his wife Reema Srivastava and his daughter Aishwarya Srivastava for sum insured Rs. 2,00,000/-. Contents of subsequent policy No. 0000000006406136  are disputed by the complainant. During course of argument it was submitted by the O.Ps. that after observing all formalities and filling of the proposal form said policy has been opened in which complainant has paid premium of Rs. 9900/-. Said fact has been denied by the complainant saying that he never signed any paper for opening of new policy only he has transferred the premium amount through electronic mode. It is also said on behalf of the complainant that he has paid Rs. 9900/- only for renewal of his previous policy.
8.          It is well known to all that all the original proposal forms are being kept in the office of O.Ps. and it is not being provided to the insured persons. Photo copy of proposal form has been brought on record by the O.P. and we have gone through it. On perusal of that very proposal form through bare eyes, it is apparent that it has been filled by a person who himself has written ‘A. Srivastava‘ at two places in the column of signature of the insured person.  It is completely different from the other signatures made by the complainant on several others papers. In this way it is apparent that the proposal form related to second policy has not been signed by the complainant himself nor it has been filled up by him.   If there was any fairness on the part the O.Ps. then they would have brought the proposal form of first policy on the record for its comparison with the second one but said proposal form has been withheld by the O.Ps. In the second policy name of the complainant has been mentioned Abhay Srivastava which is not correct.
9.          It is not in dispute that in both the policies premium has been paid electronically from savings account of the complainant. In spite of request made by the complainant vide letter dt. 23.09.2017 no response has been shown by the O.Ps. in respect to the correction of the details of the policy. Complainant has paid the second premium under impression that his previous policy is being renewed but here in this case some surprising act has been done by the O.Ps. by opening of new policy which was never prayed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the O.Ps. who have not acted in a prudent and fair manner. Hence claim of the complainant is liable to be allowed.
10.         In the result, prayer of the complainant is being allowed and both the O.Ps. are directed to return the premium amount of Rs. 9900/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from 18.03.2017 and also pay Rs. 25000/- as compensation for the harassment etc. caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost. At this place we would like to mention here that O.Ps. may recover above money from the erring person/agent/ staff due to whose act the Goodwill  of the  company is being questioned. The compliance of above order must be insured within 60 days from today, failing which O.Ps. shall face other legal consequences.