SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: Complainant Nandakishor Sarangi has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Case of the complainant in brief is that he took a SBI Life Shubh Nivesh Whole life Plan Policy Vide No.35019203501 commencing from 01.03.2012 with a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- with yearly premium of Rs.14,140/- and the second renewal premium was paid on dt.11.3.2013 in shape of cheque.
    2. The complainant did not consent for the 3rd premium to be paid through he had paid the 2nd premium. According to the complainant O.P.No.4 deducted the 3rd premium from his account and deposited the amount with SBI Life (O.P.No.3) without his consent and knowledge for which legal notice was issued to the O.Ps by the complainant. But they failed to give any reply. Complainant went to the office of the O.P.No.2, who orally assured him that there will be no more deduction of premium from his S/B account. O.Ps failed to take notice of agreement and continued with deduction of the 4th premium. According to complainant, this is illegal act of O.P.No.4. O.Ps have intentionally harassed the petitioner putting him to unnecessary mental agony. For this unfair trade practice indulged by the O.Ps, they are jointly and severally liable and responsible for the suffering of the complainant.
    On the basis of the above allegations complainant filed this case praying for a direction to the O.Ps to refund of the four premiums paid along with interest @ 18% per annum, pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding and other reliefs.
    In order to support his case complainant has filed documents which are Xerox copies of:
    (1) ATM customer advice (2) Postal registration receipts (3) Legal notice dt.21.3.2014
(4) One letter from Assistant Collector, Nizarat, Sambalpur dt.9.12.2015, wherein a financial assistance of Rs.30,000/- was paid in favour of the complainant for treatment of cancer (5) Income certificate dt.2.12.2015 issued by Tahasildar, Sambalpur.
3. O.P.No.1 appeared and prayed for deletion of its name as it is a statutory authority and 
accordingly, O.P.No.1 was deleted from the proceeding on dt.13.4.2015.
    4. O.P.No.2 appeared through his Advocate and filed written version claiming that he is only an agent of SBI Life and is not employed/ salaried person of the SBI Life. He has no role in the maintenance of official records at all. So, he cannot be held liable for the loss of the complainant and claims that complainant has not met with any loss. The payment of premium is a matter between the complainant, O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4. Accordingly, O.P.No.2 submits for dismissal of the case against him.
    5. O.P.No.3 appeared and filed its written version through its Advocate, wherein it has agreed that it has received the cheque for the initial premium paid in the year,2012 to the 4th renewal premium  for the years,2014 and 2015. O.P.No.3 agreed that complainant was issued with the alleged SBI Life policy.  O.P.No.,3 has cited a case of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of LIC of India Vrs. Siba Prasad Dash vide order dated.14.8.2008 in which it has been observed that” The premium is given by an insured to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which premium  has been paid……….Insurer cannot be asked to refund the premium for the period when he had covered the risk………The insured cannot be given advantage of ‘risk coverage’ as also refund of premium”. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of LIC Vrs.Anil P.Tadsalkar (1) (1996) CPJ 159(NC). Hence the demand of the complainant for cancellation of policy and refund of premium amount is illegal and not at all maintainable.    
6. O.P.No.3 avers that the complainant had option to surrender the policy subject to the terms 
and conditions of the policy and may approach to the nearest branch of O.P.no.3 to know the surrender value. The complainant has an easy option to approach to his banker and get deactivated the alternative mode of premium payment, if he does not wish to continue the policy.
    7. O.P.No.3 further submits that the complainant has already availed the insurance cover for the period he paid the premium. There is no cause of action to file the present and the complainant is not entitled to get the claimed compensation and costs. This O.P. has not caused any deficiency in service or committed any unfair trade practice. However, as a customer service gesture, the O.P.no.3 is willing to refund the amount of two premiums received through electronic fund transfer under the policy for the year 2014 and 2015, i.e. Rs.14,140/- x 2 = 28,280, if the complainant wishes so. However the same is not advisable for him. Rather the complainant may approach his banker and get deactivated the alternate mode of premium payment. On the basis of the above, O.P.No.3 prays to dismiss the complaint against it with costs. 
    To substantiate its case O.P.No.3 files one affidavit evidence and application for policy containing four pages.
    8. O.P.No.4 appeared through its Advocate and files written version stating that complainant had issued a standing instruction for deduction of his yearly premium of Rs.14,140/- from his Account No.3501920350 and as per his instruction, premium amount has been deducted from his S /B. account and has been deposited with the SBI Life account.O.P.No.4 has not agreed with the averment of the complainant that deduction has been made with his consent and knowledge. According to this O.P., as per instruction of the complainant deduction has been made and therefore it is presumed that he got the knowledge agreement and consent for the said deduction of the premium. The bank authority cannot debit or credit anybody’s account without his/her instruction. On the basis of the above, O.P.No.4 prays for dismissal of the case against it.
    9. Heard the learned counsels of the parties and perused the complaint petition, written versions and documents placed on record. We appreciate the fact that O.P.No.3 has come forward to refund last two premiums for the year 2014 and 2015, but it has not touched upon the other two premiums, which the complainant has paid. 
    10. It is admitted fact that complainant is suffering from cancer for which he is in requirement of money and accordingly, he had gone to O.P.Nos.2 & 4 and approached not to deduct any more premium from his account. But O.P.No.4 ignoring his oral instruction has deducted the premiums for the years 2014 and 2015. Complainant was forced to send one legal notice, but it was also ignored by O.P.No.4 and it went on deducting the premium which is without any authority from the complainant.
    11. On careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, we find two issues to decide the case i.e. (1) Whether O.P.No.3 is liable to refund the premium amount? (2) Whether O.P.Nos.2 & 4 are liable to compensate the complainant for causing loss and sufferings?
    12. O.P.No.3 has agreed as gesture of good will to refund the premiums for the years 2014 and 2015. For the period 2012 and 2013 they will pay the surrender value for the two premiums. Under such facts, we are not charging any interest on the said amount on the O.P.No.3 as it has voluntarily agreed as a gesture of good will to refund the money to the complainant. 
                                        
    13. O.P.No.4 is guilty of misadventure as it blandly denied that it has not committed any misfeasance. But the record shows that O.P.No.4 was noticed by the complainant, but it has not taken any action on his instruction/request and went on deducting the premium from his account, which in or opinion is without any authority. 
    14. In para-4 of its written version, O.P.No.4 states that the ban king authority cannot debit or credit anybody’s account without his/her instruction.  But in this case, it has violated this basic principle of banking, which has caused loss and sufferings to the complainant for which it is liable to compensate.
15. O.P. No. 2 did not help after he was noticed by the complainant regarding stoppage of premium payment by O.P. No. 4. It was his duty to see to it that O.P. No. 4 did not deduct premium money from the account of the complainant. He has failed to provide any service though knowing very well that the complainant is suffering from Cancer. Hence we feel that he is deficient in providing service. 
    16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we allow the case of the complainant & pass order as follows:
(a) O.P.No.3, SBI Life is directed to refund the premium amounts for the years, 2014 and 2015 and surrender value of other two premiums for 2012 and 2013 by completing necessary formalities. 
(b) O.P.No.4, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sambalpur is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss for unauthorized deduction of money from  his account. 
(c ) O.P. No. 2 is to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand) as compensation for not providing any service to the Complainant at the time of his need.

The O.Ps are to comply the order within one month from the date of order.