Karnataka

Kolar

CC/19/2017

Mr.Sathyanarayana Rao.H.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, HDFC - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Raghavendra

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14/02/2017

Date of Order: 04/07/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 04^TH DAY OF JULY 2017

PRESENT

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

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.19 OF 2017

Mr. Sathynarayana Rao.H.V,

S/o. Venkatappa H.S,

R/at: No.296, Dhanalakshmi

Road, Veerabhadra Swamy

Temple, Gowribidanur,

Chikkaballapura District.                        ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. K.Raghavendra & Harisha.D.N, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

HDFC SL, Bangalore M.G. Road

Branch, Off at: No.9, 2^nd Floor,

Block 2-A, Esquire Centre,

M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.Kumar, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager,

HDFC Bank, B.H. Road,

Gowribidanur,

Chikkaballapur District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. Shilpa Sharad, Advocate)      …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

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

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against the OP Nos.1 & 2 Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- along with interest @ 18% per month and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and legal expenses.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The complainant submitted that, on 11.02.2014 complainant obtained a Health Insurance Policy called “HDFC Life Health Assure Plan” bearing Policy No.90017441 from the OPs which is family floater type policy.  The said policy covers for Rs.3,00,000/- for a term of 3 years and risk commencement date was 15.01.2014.  On 11.02.2014  complainant paid Rs.14,597/- towards first annual premium and on 23.04.2015 a sum of Rs.16,000/- was paid towards second premium to the OP-company.  On 17.06.2016 complainant received letter along with cheque for Rs.15,255/- from the OP and the OP had not informed why they have sent this amount.  Later complainant enquired with the officials of the OP and they informed that, the amount sent by OP-company belongs to 2^nd year premium amount as complainant’s policy was auto deleted. 

 

(b)    Further complainant has submitted that, on 24.08.2016 complainant issued legal notice to the OP-company and the OP-company has issued reply to the legal notice wherein which the OP-company has stated that, “the next premium payment was due on 15.01.2015 which is mentioned in the policy document and also renewal premium notice had been sent to the complainant accordingly”.  But complainant has not at all received any renewal premium notice as stated by the OP in their reply.

 

(c)    Further submission of the complainant is that, the OP-company had not instructed the complainant to take medical verification and also not issued any notice regarding cancellation of the policy.  The OP-company has returned the 2^nd premium amount on 17.06.2016 i.e., after lapse of one year two months.  When complainant visited the branch office of the OP at Gowribidanur to pay the third premium, the OP has refunded the second year premium.  This act of the OP-company resulted to loss to the complainant nearly Rs.16,000/- which amounts to deficiency in service. 

 

(d)    So contending the present complaint has been submitted seeking above set out reliefs.

 

(e)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following documents:-

1. Original Legal Notice dt.18.08.2016 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement.
2. Original Reply Notice dt.29.08.2016
3. Original Notice dt.21.09.2016
4. Copy of the Insurance Policy No.90017441
5. Account Statement dt.10.12.2013 & 22.05.2015.

 

03.   During the course of proceedings, in the first instance though notice was served, both Ops remained absent and hence both Ops placed exparte.  Later on after filing affidavit evidence by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, counsel for OP Nos.1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed their respective versions by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    The brief facts of the version filed by the learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 is that, based on the application filed by the complainant the OP No.1 has issued policy bearing No.90017441 towards purchase of HDFC Life Health Assurance Family Floater Plan Policy.  Accordingly complainant paid Rs.14,597/- towards first year premium through DD bearing No.000104 which was drawn at Gowribidanur Branch.  In the policy documents it has mentioned that, the term of the policy is 3 years with 3 lakhs sum assured and the next premium due date as 15.01.2015.  The complainant is well aware of these clauses since January-2014.  A premium notice was also been issued to the complainant but complainant has failed to pay the 2^nd premium within the stipulated date as mentioned in the policy and 15 days grace period was also given.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy the next premium payment was due on 15.01.2015.  But the complainant has paid the 2^nd premium on 23.04.2015 i.e., after lapse of 83 days and it is necessary to take medical verification details of the policy holder.  Hence OP No.1 informed the complainant to take medical verification to continue with the policy, but complainant not turned up.  Hence OP No.1 refunded the 2^nd premium by cancelling the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP No.1.  By denying all the remaining allegations this OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

(b)    In the version the brief contention of the OP No.2 is that, the complainant had taken Health Insurance Policy from OP No.1 and not from OP No.2 and the agreement/commitments pertaining to the said policy was held between the complainant and the OP No.1 itself.  The complainant has not made out any case under deficiency of service on the part of this OP No.2.  It is the duty of the bank to honour customer’s demand for remittance once they comply with/follow RBI guidelines and subject to balance in their account.  Once the OP-Bank receives the duly signed written instructions-cheque from the customer, the collecting bank shall process the same for clearance.  Once the instrument is subjected to clearing process, it travels from or out of OP-Bank.  The complainant and OP have issued OP No.2 banker cheque and as per Indian clearing norms this OP No.2 has worked.  Except the fact that the said cheques were collected and sent to process for clearance by this OP No.2 as per RBI rules, it denies rest of all the allegations made in the complaint.  This OP No.2 is only a banker and is in no way concerned with the insurance policy terms, issuance or rejection.  The complainant has filed this case without ascertaining any cause of action or deficiency of service against this OP No.2.  So contending OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

04.   On 03.04.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted affidavit evidence of complainant by way of examination-in-chief and on 23.05.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.2 has submitted affidavit evidence of one Mr. V.R.Seshalchala, S/o.V.S.Ramachandra, Branch Manager of Op No.2.

 

05.   On 20.06.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.1 has submitted Memo stating that, version filed by OP No.1 may be treated as OP No.1’s affidavit evidence.  On 20.06.2017 we have heard the arguments as advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both sides.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-

(A)  Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service against the OPs?

(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for ?

(C)  What order?

 

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the affirmative as against OP No.1 and in the Negative as against OP No.2

 

POINT (C):               As per final order for

the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

 

08.   It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had paid the first annual premium amount of Rs.14,597/- on 10.12.2013 and the second premium was paid through cheque dated: 23.04.2015 a sum of Rs.15,255/- and the said cheque was encashed on 22.05.2015.  To substantiate these contentions the complainant has produced the account statement extract issued by OP No.1-Bank and also documents issued by the OP No.1.  The complainant alleged that, on 17.06.2016 the complainant has received a cheque for an amount of Rs.15,255/- from the OP No.1.  Regarding which the complainant visited the OP No.1’s office on several times, but the OP No.1 had not responded.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated: 24.08.2016, but the Ops have given an evasive reply to the legal notice on 29.08.2016.  To substantiate this contention the complainant has produced the legal notice issued by him and also reply notice issued by the Ops.  In the arguments the learned counsel appearing for the OP No.1 has submitted that, as per the policy conditions the policy is for 03 years and the next premium has to be paid on 15.01.2015, but the complainant has failed to pay the second premium within the due date as well as within the additional grace period of 15 days.  The complainant has paid the 2^nd premium only on 23.04.2015 that is after lapse of 83 days and due to the lapse of several days the complainant has to take necessary medical verification details of the proposer/policy holder.  Hence the OP No.1 had informed the complainant to take a medical verification to continue with the policy, but the complainant had not turned up to take medical verification, hence OP No.1 had refunded the 2^nd premium which is paid by the complainant and cancelled the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  In this regard the OP No.1 has not produced any document to show that, the OP No.1 had inform the complainant about the taking up of medical verification to continue the said policy nor OP No.1 had informed the complainant about cancellation of the said policy premium if he has not undergone the medical verification.  Hence the contention of the OP No.1 cannot be accepted. 

 

09.   From the material placed on record and based on the arguments submitted by both the parties there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  Firstly the OP No.1 had not informed the complainant about the termination of policy or any letter correspondence to state that, he has to undergo medical verification, secondly the OP No.1 has kept the money of the complainant for 01 year 02 months without informing the complainant.  And all of a sudden the OP No.1 wake up from the deep slumber and issued cheque of Rs.15,255/- without giving any notice and not came with contention that, the complainant sent a cheque after lapse of 83 days.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  OP No.2 is a mediator between the complainant and the OP No.1.  The complainant has paid the amount through OP No.2 Bank.  Hence we hold that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and accordingly we answered point (A) & (B) in the affirmative as against OP No.1 and Negative as against OP No.2.

POINT (C)

10.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- as against OP No.1 and dismissed as against OP No.2.

 

02.   The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 17^th DAY OF JULY 2017)

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT