Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/648/2017

Ashu Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Star Health and Allied Insurane Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Maleri

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/648/2017
Date of Institution	:	13/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/01/2019

 

Ashu Bansal w/o Sh. Kewal Krishan, R/o Flat No.345, 4^th Floor, The United Cooperative House Building Society, Sector 68, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

The Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited, SCO 130-131, 4^th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its authorized person.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                      

PRESENT	:	None for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Amit Gupta, Vice Counsel for Sh. Punit Jain, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.          Allegations, in brief, are that the Complainant had purchased an Accident Care Individual Insurance Policy of Rs.25,00,000/- from the Opposite Party by paying an insurance premium of Rs.4200/- vide Cheque No.017046 dated 15.10.2016. However, despite clearance of the above said Cheque into the account of the Opposite Party, the said Accident Care Individual Policy Bond was never issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, for which formal Complaints were made to the Head Office of the Opposite Party through e-mail as well as through registered post on 07.12.2017. Eventually, vide e-mail dated 31.12.2016, the Opposite Party expressed its inability to issue the said Policy to the Complainant jointly with her son on the ground that the Complainant is not an earning member, ignoring the fact that the Complainant is an income tax assesse and is self-employed doing the business of Beauty Parlous. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the answering Opposite Party has rightly not handed over the Policy Bond to Mrs. Ashu Bansal for the simple reason that she was not working and as thus the Policy could not be issued to her and the child. Moreover, the Complainant has failed to provide any proof of her working much less any document to show that she was doing the work of Beauty Parlour.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
6.         Perusal of Annexure C-5 an e-mail by the Opposite Party to the Complainant dated 31.12.2016 confirms that the Opposite Party received the alleged amount and promised to process the refund at the earliest showing its inability to issue the policy due to the reason that the wife of the Complainant was not a earning member. Further, Annexure C-6 is an e-mail by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 02.01.2017 clarifying that his wife is an Income Tax Assesee. Annexure C-7 is the Indian Income Tax Return Verification Form in the name of the Complainant’s wife showing her status.
7.         Per record it is abundantly clear that the Complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.4200/-, but it is out of our understanding that for what purpose the premium was charged and the relevant received Cheque was encashed particularly in the situation of non-issuance of the disputed policy with the specific reason that the Complainant’s wife was non-working.
8.         We are of the opinion that it is the Opposite Party only who by its negligent attitude of charging premium for issuance of the policy and then refusing it and later, non-honouring its promise to refund the same proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant and forced him to get indulged in the present unwarranted, uncalled for litigation.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed qua Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed as under:-

1. To refund Rs.4200/- to the Complainant;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing mental agony & harassment to him;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by Opposite Party within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
16/01/2019	[Dr.S.K. Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”