Punjab

Sangrur

CC/616/2017

Sham Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandeep Kumar Hareri

04 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.    616

                                                Instituted on:      22.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       04.07.2018

 

Sham Lal aged 67 years son of Shri Chhajju Ram, resident of Ward No.6, Near Oriental Bank of Commerce, Lehragaga, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regd. & Head Office: A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Chief Manager.

2.     Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala-147001 through its Divisional Manager.

3.     Oriental Bank of Commerce, Corporate Office, Plot No.5, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) through its General Manager.

4.     Oriental Bank of Commerce, Anaj Mandi, Lehra Gaga, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager. 

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.K.Hareri, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

For OP No.3&4         :       Shri Parmod Saxena, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sham Lal,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 4 by obtaining a mediclaim insurance policy bearing number 233500/48/2017/261 by paying the requisite premium of Rs.4709/- to the OPs number 3 and 4 for the period from 20.4.2016 to 19.4.2017, which he intended to continue long for the years.  Further case of the complainant is that the policy has a grace period of one month, as such the complainant handed over a demand draft dated 24.4.2017 for Rs.4730/- to OP number 4 for renewal of the insurance policy in question. But, the complainant received a letter dated 1.8.2017 from OP number 4 whereby it was informed to the complainant that the request for renewal of the insurance policy was denied and the OP cancelled the draft issued and credited the same to the saving bank account of the complainant and by this way the complainant was deprived from getting the insurance policy in question renewed. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 20.09.2018 upon the OPs, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to renew the policy in question and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that there are complicated questions of law and facts involved and that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the Op number 2 issued the mediclaim insurance policy for the period from 20.4.2016 to 19.4.2017. However, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  Further it is denied that the complainant approached OP number 4 to prepare a demand draft for Rs.4730/- on 24.4.2017 and the same was kept by OP number 4  with the assurance that the same shall be sent to OP number 2, so that the policy may be renewed within the period of one month from 19.4.2017.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3 and 4, it is admitted that the complainant had earlier purchased the insurance policy. However, it is stated that the policy is always issued to the policy holder and the terms and conditions are also mentioned in the policy. The OP has no knowledge about the grace period of one month as the policy was with the complainant. Further it is admitted that the OP issued the letter and the complainant was advised to apply with a fresh application and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 has produced affidavit and closed evidence. The OP number 3 and 4 also produced Ex.OP3&4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting insured himself under mediclaim insurance policy bearing number 233500/48/2017/261 which was valid for the period from 20.4.2016 to 19.4.2017, as is evident from the copy of the insurance policy on record as Ex.C-2, which was taken by the complainant through OP number 4. It is further on record that the insurance policy in question expired on 19.4.2017 and for renewal of the insurance policy the complainant handed over a demand draft dated 24.4.2017 for Rs.4730/- to OP number 4, but the OP number 4 failed to further forward the demand draft to OPs number 1 and 2 for renewal of the insurance policy, due to which the complainant was deprived from getting the insurance benefit due to the negligence of the OP number 4. It is on record that the OP number 4 sent a letter to the complainant whereby it was intimated that the insurance company denied for renewal of the insurance policy as it had already expired and further advised the complainant to file a fresh application for issuance of the mediclaim policy.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why the demand draft in question was kept by OP number 4, whereas the same was handed over by the complainant on 24.4.2017 for renewal of the insurance policy of the complainant. It seems that the demand draft in question was kept by OP number 4 for a sufficient period and thereafter credited the amount in the account of the complainant i.e. after lapse of the grace period for renewal of the insurance policy.  To support this contention, the complainant has produced his own sworn affidavit as Ex.C-1.  The OP number 2 has also produced affidavit Ex.OP3&4/1 wherein it has been mentioned that the policy is always issued to the policy holder and the OP number 3 and 4 has no knowledge about the grace period of one month, but we may mention that the OP number 4 is silent about the episode regarding submission of the demand draft dated 24.4.2017 with it and why the policy was not got renewed from the insurance company. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the OP number 4 is deficient in service by not getting renewed the insurance policy of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant had already submitted demand draft dated 24.4.2017 for renewal of the insurance policy. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to non renewal of the insurance policy in question.  We further direct OP number 4 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 4, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member