2. Chief Branch Manager,

    SBI Main Branch,

    Nagarampalem,

    Guntur district.                                              …Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      10-05-11 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a declaration to set aside the letter dated 01-05-09 for Rs.31,565.31 ps, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenses.

2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is working as development officer in LIC.   The 1^st opposite party is doing banking and financial business throughout India and the 2^nd opposite party is branch office of 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party is doing its business through branches of SBI all over the country.   The 1^st opposite party introduced credit cards.   Having attracted to the facility of credit card and its usages the complainant took credit card in October, 2004 bearing NO.0004317575026409767.   The complaint never used the credit card at any time.   The 1^st opposite party is having business tie up with M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited.   The opposite parties without his written consent and request issued hospital cash plan insurance policy to the complainant on 23-06-05 which was valid upto 22-06-06.   Premium of the said Policy was Rs.6,658/-.  The premium was debited to the complainant’s credit card account.   The complainant need not obtain any insurance policy from other companies being an employee of LIC.  The opposite parties simply issued policy through credit card without making any request from the complainant and insisted for premium amount.     Agents of the opposite party approached the complainant and asked payment for the above policy for which he vehemently refused to pay.   The opposite parties cannot issue insurance policy suomoto without free consent of the complainant.   The opposite parties issued the bills showing the premium as outstanding due in the name of complainant.  The opposite parties failed to produce return consent or letter in respect of policy.  The opposite parties harassed the complainant for settlement.   On 01-05-09 the opposite party issued a letter requiring the complainant to appear at New Delhi for adjudication.   The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The opposite parties remained exparte.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the opposite parties issued hospital cash plan insurance without consent of the complainant in his favour and committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages as sought and if so to what amount?
3. Whether the complainant is in time?
4. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.3:-  While registering the complaint the office took an objection regarding limitation for which the complainant endorsed on the aspect of limitation “the complainant seek redressal against the pending bill related issuance of policy and its dues.  Unwarranted demand bill is still pending.  Hence, the complaint is within limitation U/S 24 A of CP Act”.    On perusal of the said endorsement the complaint was numbered. 

7.     Ex.A-2 revealed that Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited issued Master Policy NO.HCSBAL0003 on 23-09-05 and the period of insurance was from 23-06-05 to 22-06-06.    In Ex.A-2 dated 23-09-05 it was mentioned “this is to certify that Mr/Ms. Rao NRS has paid an amount of Rs.6658/- towards Health Insurance for the above policy under the scheme approved by IRDA.  This certificate is issued for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 80D of Income Tax Act, 1961”.    

8.     Ex.A-4 is the letter addressed to the complainant on 01-07-05 and it reads as follows:

        “Dear Customer,

          Thank you for choosing Royal Sundaram as your first choice                    General insurer.

Your cover under the Hospital Cash Plan for SBI cardmembers is                       effective from 23-06-05.

Please find enclosed with this letter, your certificate schedule                  and certificate wording.  Please keep these documents                  together with this letter in a safe place as they form part of               our contract with you.

Please do take a few minutes to review your insurance documents carefully and should you have any queries regarding your cover, please feel free to contact our customer service officer at 1600 44 44 77.  You may also reach us at We welcome you to the Royal Sundaram family and assure you of out best service at all times”.   

9.     It is the case of the complainant that he did not utilize the credit card issued by the 1^st opposite party.  It can therefore be inferred that the complainant did not purchase any merchandise under the said credit card.   Ex.A-1 monthly statement therefore related to the premium of insurance towards the policy covered by Ex.A-2.   

10.   The complainant never questioned the debit of Rs.6,658/- to his credit card account during the subsistence of hospital cash plan insurance policy.  Ex.A-2 is later in point of time to Ex.A-4.   The complainant ought to have protested soon after the receipt of Ex.A-2.  Ex.A-7 is the monthly statement dated 09-01-07 for a sum of Rs.16,611.61 ps.   The complaint was filed on 09-10-09.    So the limitation starts in the least from 22-06-06 i.e., the expiry of period of insurance policy or from the receipt of Ex.A-7 statement from the 1^st opposite party.  Silence on the part of the complainant for a considerable time inspite of Exs.A-2,  A-3 and Ex.A-7 amounted to acquiescence i.e., in accepting the policy covered by Ex.A-2.   To bring the claim in limitation the complainant is questioning Ex.A-1 letter as illegal.  As it related to the policy covered by Ex.A-2 the complainant ought to have filed the complainant on or before 21-06-08 or at a later date with a petition U/S 24 A of C.P. Act.  The complainant did not file any petition U/S 24 A of C.P.Act.   Exs.A-2 and  A-4 leads us to draw an inference that the complaint  is barred by time.   Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite party though remained exparte.

11.   POINT No.1:-    Ex.A-3 certificate of insurance revealed names of seven family members of the complainant and their dates of birth.   It is not the case of the complainant that names of the family members and their dates of birth mentioned in Ex.A-3 is in correct.  It is not possible for either of the opposite parties or M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance insurance company to mention such details in              Ex.A-3 without the consent of the complainant.   Exs.A-2 and A-3 were discussed in detail while dealing point No.3 i.e., the aspect of limitation.  Exs.A-2 to A-4 clearly established consent of the complainant in issuing insurance policy.   It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party is charging exorbitant interest.   Under those circumstances, we opine that the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  

12.  POINT No.2:-   In view of findings on point NO.1 the complainant is not entitled to any amount as compensation.   Hence, this point is also answered in favour of the complainant. 

13. POINT No.4:-  In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 19th day of May, 2011.      

            MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:     

For opposite parties:   NIL

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT