Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member .
The Complaint alleges deficiency of service, provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the gist of the Complaint described as under.
The Complainant Judhistir Pradhan of village Tajatikra, Janhapada, Po. Janhapada, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh lodged Consumer Complaint against the Senior Customer care Executive Branch operation Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Sambalpur. The Branch Manager, S.D.C.C. Bank Ltd Attabira, Secretary, S.D.C.C. Bank Ltd, Bargarh who happens to be Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) respectively. Opposite Party No.1(one) is the Executive of Reliance Life Insurance Company for the undivided Sambalpur District. Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) runs insurance business having tie up with Opposite Party No.1(one).
The Complainant contends that on the request of Opposite Party No.1(one), the Complainant entered into an insurance contract with Opposite Party No.1(one) for the policy known as “H-NAV” plan vide application No.18119228 for a stipulation of 15(fifteen) years and the installment premium is Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only per years. The policy was issued on Dt.16/11/2010. The second installment premium was deposited on Dt.15/11/2011 through the Agent/Advisor having Code No. 21076197 and the money receipt was issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide No. WC 0014517038.
Further contention of the Complainant is that it came to the knowledge of the Complainant that premium for 2011 has not been deposited with Opposite Party No.1(one) but no such letter was issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant to that effect.
Further contention of the Complainant is that notices were issued to the Opposite Parties but no reply was received from them.
The Complainant contends that for such acts of Opposite Parties the policy became irregular and the Complainant sustained loss of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only and also insurance benefit which amounts to deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.
The Complainant prays for a direction of the from to the Opposite Parties
to refund Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only with usual rate of bank interest till realization of amount.
compensation for an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only for the loss of insurance benefit.
litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only and
any other relief deemed fit.
The Complainant is support of his claim relies upon the xerox copy of the following documents:-
Premium Collection Receipt vide receipt No. WC 0014517038 Dt.15/11/2011.
Notice Dt.08/12/2012 issued to Opposite Parties.
Notice Dt.05/02/2013 issued to Opposite Parties.
Postal receipts Dt.06/02/2013.
Policy bond along with first premium receipt.
Inspite of repeated call on several posting dates Opposite Party No.1(one) did not appeared before the Forum and presumption of being sufficiently noticed drawn against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and he is set ex-parte vide order Dt.20/11/2013.
Being noticed Opposite party No.2(two) and No.3(three) appeared before the Forum and filed their version denying allegations against them.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) in their version contend that Opposite Party No.1(one) insured some of the customers of the bank.
Further contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) No.3(three) is that as the insurance contract is between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1(one), the present Opposite Parties have no nexus with the policy and the matter i.e. about the complaint of the Complainant was intimated to the authority of Opposite Party No.1(one), hence question of deficiency of service does not arise against the present Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) prays for dismissal of the complaint against them.
Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) filed no documents in support of their contention.
Having gone through the pleadings of the parties, documents available on record, the issues likely to be decided as follows:-
Is there any deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant.
Whether Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) are in any way responsible for the deficiency in service caused to the Complainant.
Solution to Issue No.1(one).
Perused the documents filed by the Complainant.
The policy for H-NAV plan by the Complainant reveals that there was an insurance contract between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1(one). Also for the non appearance of Opposite Party No.1(one) before the Forum makes the documents un rebuttable and undisputed. This fact is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) in their version.
The first premium receipt No. 165831213 Dt. 16/11/2010 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only and second premium collection receipt No. WC 0014517308 Dt. 15/11/2011 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only filed by the Complainant under H-NAV plan clearly reveals that two installment for a total amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only has been received by the Opposite Party No.1(one) from the Complainant.
As per the Complaint, no letter or correspondence was made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant as to non receipt of second premium amount which means the ethics more clear and evidence that Opposite Party No.1(one) received the second premium amount from the Complainant and for the irregularity in the insurance policy held by the Complainant is a deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant. The issues answer as of.
Solution to Issue No.2(two).
Even if the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) are arrayed as Opposite Party in this complaint case, the Complainant has not come up with any sort of evidence to proof their involvenut with Opposite Party No.1(one) to promote the insurance business, the Forum is helpless in holding deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) to the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) are exonerated from the charge. Hence answer the issue.
O R D E R
Considering all the facts and evidence on record the Forum order as follows:-
The Opposite Party No.1(one) shall refund the insurance amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only along with 6%(six percent) interest per annum from Dt.16/11/2011 to date of Order within 45(forty five) days of the order. Interest at the rate of 9%(nine percent) per annum shall be calculated there after till realization of the entire amount and also Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only for litigation expenses.
The Complaint disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
