In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.343/2011.

1)                   Mr. Nripendra Nath Chatterjee,

                27/15/2  Andul Road,

                P.O. Danesh Sk. Lane, Dist. Howrah, Pin-711109.                                                      ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   The Manager,

                Kotak Mahindra Bank,

                2A, Brabourne Road, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-1.

2)                   The Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Apeejay House, 15, Park Street,

P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-17.                                                                           --------- Opposite Parties

Present :                Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                                Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                                Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   20    Dated  27-09-2014.

            The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 is the bank and o.p. no.2 is the Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Both o.ps. are run and headed by the Kotak Mahindra Group.

                Complainant is a savings account holder of o.p. no.1 bearing no.03230120019194 and one Ms. Urvashi Ghosh (concerned officer) of o.p. no.1 approached the complainant with the proposal to get insured with their sister concern, i.e. o.p. no.2 under a plan namely ‘Kotak Smart Advantage’ and as according to the proposal of Ms. Urvashi Ghosh the complainant accepted the same thereby issued a cheque of Rs.60,000/- towards the 1^st installment premium in favour of o.p. no.2.

                Unfortunately due to some urgent piece of work the complainant was out of station and as a result the complainant missed to pay the 2^nd premium which he was ought to pay on or by 27.6.09, thereafter about six months later the complainant visited the office of o.p. no.1, talked with Ms. Urvashi Ghosh; wherefrom he was asked to apply for revival of the said policy.

                Complainant was provided with an application form for revival by o.p. no.1which the complainant filled and submitted along with the renewal of cheque on spot, but the cheque was not accepted by o.p. no.1 on the ground that after due process of the application the premium shall be deducted along with penalty (Policy Revival Charge) from the savings account of complainant.

                Complainant waited for a few months and getting no feedback from the o.ps. regarding the revival of the said policy again visited the office of o.p. no.2 on the advice of o.p. no.1 and enquired for the same, wherein he was once more asked to submit a fresh revival application.

                By a letter dt.15.4.10 o.p. no.2 asked the complainant to send the medical reports of the complainant for a review by the panel of doctors of o.p. no.2 and also o.ps. asked the complainant to bear the medical expenses.

                Soon after the letter dt.15.4.10 the complainant met with o.p. no.1 and stated that he did not have any current ECG report and o.p. no.1 asked him to go through ECG right at that time and submit the same.

                Most surprisingly o.p. no.2 informed the complainant by a letter dt.20.5.10 that they decline from reviving the said policy of the complainant due to Elevated BP and ECG findings. Hence, o.p. no.2 terminated the said policy of the complainant.

                All of a sudden the complainant received a cheque amounting to Rs.6000/- dt.5.7.11 from o.p. no.2 bearing no.900802 along with a forwarding letter, after lapse of 14 months of termination i.e. 20.5.11 o.p. no.2 sent the cheque of Rs.6000/-.

                On 13.9.11 complainant sent another e-mail to o.ps. stating thereby that instead of reviving the said policy o.p. sent back a cheque of Rs.6000/- and complainant dissatisfied with such irregularities of o.p. sent back the cheque to the office of o.p. no.2 by ordinary post.

                It may be stated here that at the time of issuing the said policy the complainant was never asked to do go through any medical examinations or send any medical reports, though the complainant at that point of time was also an aged man of 60 years. 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 labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:

                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that as per the terms of the policy agreement if the complainant fails to deposit the 2^nd premium of the policy and not interested to continue, then the complainant should get back only 10% of the 1^st premium which is Rs.6000/- only. O.p. already offered the said amount to the complainant, but he has refused the same.

            But o.p. has assured the complainant that the policy would be revived. O.p. sent the cheque to him amounting to Rs. 6000/- dt. 05/07/2011 after a long period. So there is deficiency in service on the part of o.p.

            Hence, ordered,

            The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to return Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only to the complainant, which complainant has been refused and are further directed to pay the complainant compensation of Rs. 7000/- only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.