Date of filing :16.5.2017
Judgment : Dt.27.4.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Sri Amarendra Nath Ghosh alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) namely (1) The Managing Director, Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (2) The Branch Manager Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and (3) The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that in first week of March, 2016, one Telemarketing agent of OP No.1, the centralize customer service centre and Registered Office of Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. had called the Complainant over telephone and fixed an appointment with their Sales Person with the Complainant and accordingly on or around 18.3.2016 one lady who introduced herself as the sales person of OP No.1 and also one of the Branch Offices of the OP No.1 i.e. OP No.2 and being convinced by her the Complainant agreed to insure the Life of his nephew out of love and affection under Life Insurance Policy to be issued by the OP Nos.1 & 2. The said sales person handed over a proposal form to the Complainant and requested him to put his signature on the several pages of the said proposal form and, thereafter, took back the said proposal form along with a cancelled cheque of the Complainant and also the necessary information and she also took the signature of the Complainant on a DIRECT Debet Mandate Form so that they can collect the premium directly from the Bank Account of the Complainant. The Complainant has stated that on 19.4.2016 he has received the policy bond from the Exide Life Insurance Policy being Policy No.03315474 along with photocopy of proposal form and other documents signed by the Complainant. Receiving the said policy bond the Complainant was shocked to discover that there were several abnormalities and wrong information had been inserted in the said policy Bond. The Complainant, however, made contact with the OP No.1 on several occasions over phone and at that repeated requests the OP No.1 sent a representative namely Mr. Rakesh Das on 2.4.2016, who after perusing such anomalies in the Policy Bond told the Complainant to write an application which was received by him at the residence of the Complainant and also assured the Complainant of the rectification of the Policy Bond. In spite of such assurance, the said policy had not been rectified so far although the Complainant made several correspondences to the OP insurer. It is, further, case of the Complainant that after sensing foul play on the part of the OP insurer he wrote a letter on 08.02.2017 to the OP No.3 to stop payment through ECS in favour of Exide Life Insurance Company from his Savings Bank Account No.08540100006933 but, to his utter surprise, he found on 1.4.2017 an SMS acknowledging receipt of payment of Rs.14,744.66 towards premium of the said policy through the said Bank Account that an amount of Rs.14,744.66 was debited from his Bank Account to the account of OP Insurance Co. even after receiving a stop payment application from the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant by filing the instant Consumer Complaint prayed for a direction upon OP Nos.s1 & 2 to cancel/foreclose the policy of the Complainant, to refund Rs.29,744.66 which was paid by the Complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and direction upon OP No.3 to pay Rs.10,000/- for mishandling the hard earned money of the Complainant.
The OP insurer contested the case and filed written version denying all the material allegations stating inter alia that the Complainant being agreeable accepted the policy and subsequently made correspondences to the OP insurer for cancelation of the said policy but that too beyond the free look period. It is further stated by the OP Insurer that the letter dt.22.4.2016 sent by the Complainant was a clear calculated step by the Complainant to file the instant litigation since the said letter was addressed to “The Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd., Salt Lake, G. P. Block, Tower-3, 3rd floor Unit-II, Kolkata-700 091” wherein the OPs do not have a branch office. Accordingly, the OP Insurer prayed for dismissal of the instant Consumer Complaint.
The OP No.3 contested the case by filing written version stated inter alia, that the Complainant activated the ECS procedure by giving one cancelled cheque in favour of the Insurance Co. and as per RBI rules and regulations the ECS Debit Schemes Works on the strength of the mandate or debit instruction given by the destination account holder to User Institution for effecting payment from their account and as such they did not stop payment of premium to the OP Insurer in respect of the policy in question.
The OP further stated that destination branches can debit their customers account only on the basis of the mandates given to them and ECS procedure is totally controlled by the destination Bank and, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.3 and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the instant Consumer Complaint.
The Complainant annexed photocopies of Policy Bond, letters dt.22.4.2016, 10.2.2017, 15.7.2016 issued by the Complainant letter dt.29.7.2016, 10.11.2016 issued by the General Manager Customer Services, Exide LIC Ltd. to the Complainant, reply dt.30.8.2016 issued from the end of the Complainant, Foreclosure payout Form, letter dt.27.01.2017 issued by the Complainant to the Branch Manager Exide LIC Ltd., letter dt.8.2.2017 issued by Complainant to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, etc.
In course of argument narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
Ld. Advocate for OP Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the Complainant was well aware about the proposal form.
Ld. Advocate for OP No.3 submitted that the Complainant activated the ECS procedure and ECS procedure is controlled by the destination Bank. Therefore, despite receiving direction from the Complainant of stop payment the OP Bank could not control the same.
Points for determination
- Whether the OP Nos.1 & 2 have deficiency in providing service in respect of the policy in question.
- Whether the OP Bank has deficiency in providing service in respect of debiting the amount for premium in spite of ‘stop payment’ instruction from the end of the Complainant.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief claimed.
Decision with reasons
All points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly, the OP Insurer issued policy being No.03315474 ensuring the life of Nabajit Ghosh, nephew of the Complainant and the Complainant was proposer of the said policy. The Complainant alleged that there were several anomalies in the terms of the said policy and even in the information as given to the proposal form which was filled by the agent of OP Insurer though the Complainant only put his signature thereunder. To sum up, the Complainant was dissatisfied with the said policy. However, as per guideline of IRDA there is provision for 15 day which is termed as “Free look period” during which the proposer / the policy holder may cancel the concerned policy at his option. In the instant case it is evident that within 15 days from issuance of the said policy the Complaint vide letter dt.22.4.2016 expressed his dissatisfaction. The Complainant had prayed for cancellation of the policy in question and the same was duly received by one Rakesh Das who was sent by the OP Insurer to look into the matter. The OP Insurer, as regards the letter dt.22.4.2016 , stated that the Complainant wrongly addressed the OP Insurer and therefore the same cannot be taken into consideration. It is, however, observed that the OP Insurer did not deny that the said Rakesh Das was not sent by them, rather, raised a futile issue of addressing the Insurer. Therefore, it is evident that the Complainant raised objection and made option for discontinuation of the said policy within the “free look period” stating “I would request you to kindly take necessary corrective steps and issue new policy bond”.
As regards the issue of auto Debit of the premium by the Bank we find that the Bank has admitted that the Complainant instructed him to stop payment in respect of making payment of premium of the policy in question. It is the specific defence of OP Bank that as per RBI guideline.
But, as it is observed, no copy of such guideline of RBI, or even any regulation number, has been furnished by the Bank. To sum up, the Bank debited the premium amount from the account of the Complainant in spite of receiving ‘stop payment’ instruction from the end of the Complainant.
In such view of the matter, it is held that all the OPs are deficient I n providing service.
Under such state of affairs, we are inclined to allow the following prayers of the Complainant. Prayer for refund of premium by OP No.1 & 2 amounting Rs.29,744.66 paid by the Complainant as premium and prayer for payment of Rs.10,000/- by OP No.3 for mishandling the hard earned money of the Complainant.
The OPs have compelled the Complainant to file this case. Therefore, they are liable to pay litigation cost.
In the result, the Consumer Complaint succeeds.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/269/2017 is allowed in part on contest.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs.29,744.66 to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The OP No.3 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation within the aforesaid period.
The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within above mentioned period.
