PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        The Complainant has prayed that it be held that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  The Complainant has further prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to renew old Mediclaim policy for the period 31/03/2012 to 30/03/2013 and to continue the same like his earlier polices by adjusting the premium amount of Rs.6,969/- for the said period instead of the amount of Rs.7,098/- as paid by the Complainant on 04/07/2012 with the previous benefits to the Complainant. The Complainant has also prayed to renew further policies by accepting the old premium of Rs.6,969/- with earlier benefits.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for hardship, harassment, mental and physical agonies suffered by the Complainant.  The Complainant has prayed cost of Rs.25,000/- towards the complaint.

2)        According to the Complainant, he had obtained the initial Joint Mediclaim Policy on 29/03/2007 from the Opposite Party No.1 who is the body corporate i.e. Public Limited Company, registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act.  The Opposite Parties 2 to 6 are in the management of Opposite Party No.1.  Their designation are mentioned in the title clause of the complaint.  The copy of initial policy obtained by the Complainant for himself, his wife, daughter and son is marked as Annexure - ‘A’. According to the Complainant, he had renewed the policy at Annexure - ‘A’ on the dates mentioned in para 8 of the complaint by depositing the premium amount as mentioned in it for last five years by paying total sum of Rs.29,964/- to the Opposite Party No.1.  The copies of the said premium receipts are marked as Annexure - ‘B’ (colly).

3)        It is the case of the Complainant that on 17/03/2012 Cheque No.540270 drawn on HDFC Bank, Worli in favour of Opposite Party No.1 being the premium for the aforesaid mediclaim policy for the period 31/03/2012 to 30/03/2012 was tried to deliver to the Opposite Party No.1 through the office person Mr. Santosh of Complainant’s regular agent Ms. Sonal S. Mishra, however, the said was not accepted by the concerned staff of the Opposite Party No.1 and it was suggested to Mr. Santosh to deposit the same only on 28/03/2012.  It is alleged that the HDFC Bank account of the Complainant was equally operated by the father of the Complainant. On the request of the Complainant, the Complainant’s father issued a blank cheque and handed over the same to their office person namely Mr. O.P. Srivastava to fill up the same after enquiring an obtaining proper details and figures of the premium amount to be paid to the Opposite Party No.1 for the year 2012-13.  The Complainant has further alleged that while filling the particulars in the said cheque, his said office person Mr. O.P. Srivastava had committed error.  He field up the amount in figure Rs.6,969/-correctly but while writing the same in words he inadvertently mentioned Rs. Six Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Only.  Due to which the said cheque was returned back to the payee by the banker of the Complainant on 04/04/2012 with remark, i.e. “Amount in words and figures differ”.  Copy of the said cheque is marked as Annexure - ‘C’ and the copy of cheque return memo dtd.04/04/2012 issued by Complainant’s banker.  HDFC Bank is marked as Annexure - ‘D’. 

4)        According to the Complainant, the xerox copies of Annexure - ‘C’ & ‘D’ were handed over to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.5 only alongwith the reply letter issued to the Complainant dtd.29/05/2012 which was received by the Complainant on 08/06/2012.  It is the case of the Complainant that the concerned staff of the Opposite Party No.1 had not accepted the cheque earlier and suggested to deposit the same only on 28/03/2012.  It is alleged that, it appears that the said cheque was later on deposited by the Opposite Party No.1 on 03/04/2012 and the same was returned back for the reasons as noted above to the Opposite Party No.1 on 05/04/2012.  According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 & 5 ought to have contacted the Complainant immediately and in writing should have communicated in writing about return of the said cheque.  They ought to have provided an opportunity to rectify the said error by issuing the said check and the same was not done by them.  It is alleged that when the Complainant did not receive the original copy of the new policy for a long time he contacted the office of Opposite Party No.1in the second or third week of May, 2012 and the officer of the said office total the Complainant that his policy was cancelled due to return of the said cheque and not depositing the amount even thereafter within one month time which is normally provided.  The Complainant thereafter sent letter to the Opposite Party No.1, 3 & 4 and other Directors of the Opposite Party No.1. on 19/05/2012 and requested them to accept his fresh cheque of the premium amount for the next year i.e. 31/03/2012 to 30/03/2013. The copy of the said letter alongwith its acknowledgment are marked as Annexure - ‘E’.  It is alleged that the Complainant received reply from Opposite Party No.5 on 08/06/2012 in which it was informed that due to cancellation of old policy the same cannot be renewed because of laps period of more than 1 month.  The copy of the said is as Annexure - ‘G’.  It is further prayed that as per the further correspondence as the Opposite Parties had not renewed the old policy the Complainant and his family members have deprived of advantages and benefits of the said five year old policy.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.5 suggested the Complainant that he should pay fine of Rs.129/- through his agent for renewing old policy, but instead of renewing old policy the Opposite Party No.5 had issued fresh policy.  It is thus, alleged that the Opposite Parties are guilty of gross deficiency in service and they have adopted unfair trade practices and caused harassment to the Complainant.  the Complainant has therefore, prayed that the reliefs mentioned in para 1 of this order may be granted against the Opposite Parties.  

5)        The Opposite Parties filed written statement and denied the claim made by the Complainant.  It is contended that the Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed material fact or twisted the facts solely with a view to obtain orders in his favour.  It is contended that the reliefs sought in the complaint by the Complainant does not sustain as the Opposite Party No.1 had already condoned delay for renewal of mediclaim policy which expired on 30/03/2012.  It is contended that as the Complainant has suppressed the material facts, the Complainant is not entitle to seek any reliefs in his favour.  It is further contended that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief for his own wrong and negligence in his duties, the complaint is therefore, liable to be dismissed.  According to the Opposite Parties, the policy comes into force only when the premium towards policy is received from the customer by the Opposite Party No.1 as per prescribed mode.  If the payment is received by cheque then the same is accepted subject to realization and the policy comes into force only after the cheque of the customer gets cleared.  It is contended that the Complainant is not customer of the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 6 and they are wrongly impleaded in the complaint.  According to the Opposite Parties, the cheque which was submitted by the Complainant and the same was dishonored due to mismatching the amount written in figures and words.  The entire incident of drawing cheque towards the payment of policy was done by the Complainant on his own part and therefore, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for the wrong of the Complainant.  It was the duty of the Complainant to take every precaution towards payment of policy premium.  It is submitted that the Complainant ought to have taken due care after dishonor of his cheque which was given to the Opposite Party No.1 towards renewal of his policy.  According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant instead of taking appropriate steps wrongly started blaming the Opposite Parties.  It is submitted that after correspondence exchanged between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 the policy of the Complainant was renewed on 04/07/2012 prior to filing of the present complaint.  It is contended that the complaint in view of the facts and circumstances of the case is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost and the same may be dismissed.         

6)        The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence.  The Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of evidence of Ram Narayan Chakravarty i.e. Opposite Party No.6.  Both the parties have filed their written arguments.  We have heard oral argument of Complainant and on behalf of Opposite Parties B.B. Nagare Associates, Advocate & Legal consultants Shri. Kiran Patil, Advocate.  We have perused the documents placed on records.

7)        While considering the claim made in the complaint and on the basis of the documents filed on record by the Complainant at Annexure - ‘C’ & ‘D’, it appears that it is the mistake on the part of the Complainant that he had mentioned the wrong amount in words on the cheque issued by him of HDFC Bank in favour of Opposite Party No.1 dtd.17/03/2012 and the same change was returned to HDFC Bank by mentioning the reason for unpaid amount as amount in words and figures differ.  Thus, the cheque was returned unpaid on account of mistake of the Complainant.  The Complainant in the complaint has also averted to that effect.  The contention therefore raised by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant is wrongly blaming the Opposite Parties in our view can be accepted as legal and proper.  The Complainant though averted in the complaint that the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 did not accept the cheque on 17/03/2012 and requested the Complainant to deposit the same on 28/03/2012 cannot be accepted as there is no proof to that effect.  The Complainant has not placed on record any proof showing that on 17/03/2012 when the Complainant’s person had gone to tender the cheque of premium the staff of the Opposite Party No.1 Mr. Santosh had given in writing to deposit the same only on 28/03/2012.  Furthermore, the Complainant ought to have taken the care, that whether the cheque issued by him towards premium was encashed or not immediately prior to the last date of depositing the premium. It appears that the Complainant did not take such care.  From the correspondence placed on record, it appears that the Opposite Parties have informed the Complainant about cancellation of his policy vide their system generated letter dtd.09/04/2012.  The Complainant ought to have paid the premium within the grace period of one month from the last date of premium dtd.31/03/2012, it appears that he did not take that much care of depositing the premium within the grace period of one month from 31/03/2012 but he had deposited the premium of Rs.7,098/- on 04/07/2012 for renewal of policy as per Annexure – L. The Opposite Parties have issued policy from 04/07/2012 to 03/07/2013 on 04/07/2012. As per the Insurance Law renewal of the policy is not automatic and premium due must be paid by the customer before the due date, thus in this case it can be held that the Complainant is guilty for non compliance of renewal of policy for getting continuation benefits of the old policies. The Complainant in view of the above facts in our view has failed to prove that the Opposite Parties and more particularly the Opposite Party No.1 is guilty of deficiency of service in favour of the Complainant.  The Complainant has filed this complaint against Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 6 in their personal name we are of the view that in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra in First Appeal No.A/99/807 and Misc. Application No.MA/12/22 in First Appeal No.A/12/37 and the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in reported case Branch Office, LIF OF India V/s. H. Shah, II (1994) CPJ 62 (NC), the complaint filed against the Opposite Parties No.2 to 6 is liable to be dismissed as the official and the organization itself are distinct and different juridic person we therefore, hold that in view of the aforesaid facts and legal position the complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.  In the result we pass the following order –

O R D E R

                          i.         Complaint No.69/2013 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

                 ii.          Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.