District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
CC OF 2021
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/49/2018
(Date of Filing:-19.04.2018)
- Sri Pradip Kumar Hazra
2 no. Makhla, Rice Mill, Raghunathpur,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin:-712247…………Complainant
- The Manager, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Continental Chamber, 2nd & 3rd floor,
15, Hemanta Bose Sarani, Kolkata-700001
- The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, City Centre,
South Subhas Pally
- N. Mukherjee Road,
- Dankuni, Hooghly. ….Opposite parties
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mrs. Minakshi Chakraborty, Member
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
-
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the services extended by the opposite parties as mentioned above viz. Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP 1) and Axis Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP 2), in the matter of opening of an insurance policy, abrupt discontinuation of the same by the OP 1 and transfer of a dissatisfactory amount to the petitioner’s account maintained with OP 2, on discontinuation of the policy, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The fact of the case is as follows.
Reportedly, the complainant who had his salary account with opposite party no. 2, opened a Life Insurance Policy with the OP 1 at the instance of OP 2 in the year 2011. The yearly premium was to the tune of Rs.50000/- and that was to be paid through ECS from his salary account.
The petitioner admits that premium for the year 2015 could not be paid due to his financial stringency and it is further admitted that OP 1 gave several reminders for paying the premium.
The premium is claimed to have been deposited but in the month of January 2016 which was beyond the stipulated deadline.
However, the complainant received a notice dtd.29.01.16, from the OP 1 intimating that the policy was surrendered. Accordingly an amount of Rs.1,28,148.92 was transferred by the OP 1 to the complainant’s account. By this time the total deposit of the complainant made against the policy was Rs.2,50,000/-.
The complainant alleges that having been informed that the policy was surrendered ‘with the help of opposite party no.2’, he approached to the opposite party no.2 and was suggested that the policy can again be continued by writing a letter. At this juncture, the complainant admits to have put his signature in a blank paper for the said purpose.
Finally on 14.04.2016 it was informed by the OP 1 that they were unable to continue the said policy. Resultantly the petitioner claims to have suffered substantial financial loss. Charges of ‘intentional cancellation of the policy with ulterior motive’ and ‘depriving of legitimate claim’ are leveled against OP 2.
The complainant in his petition prays for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the entire premium paid by him amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- with interest or to allow continuation of the policy and to pay Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service, Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.50,000/- for harassment and suffering and Rs.25,000/- for litigation cost.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
The complainant and the opposite party no.2 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.
Materials on records viz. written versions, evidence on affidavits, brief notes of arguments submitted by both the parties and other connected records are perused.
So far as the complaint petition is concerned, the primary issue which is noteworthy is that OP 2 i.e. Axis Bank Ltd. was not involved in Insurance business as per Banking Regulation Act 1949. It transpires that in the instant case the bank only acted as a referral agent. Thus, the main dispute revolves around an insurance policy and not any service provided by the bank.
Besides, this is nowhere supported by any documentary evidence that i) OP 2 ‘provoked’ the complainant to open an insurance policy with the OP 1, 2) after being a defaulter in the matter of paying the yearly premium the complainant approached to the OP 2 and OP 2 in turn got some purported prayer signed by the complainant for continuation of the policy, 3) the policy was surrendered at the behest of the OP 2, 4) on admission of some technical mistake, OP 2 got a blank paper signed by the complainant for revival of the policy.
In fact no documentary evidence has been annexed with the complaint petition to substantiate several allegations leveled against OP 1 and OP 2.
The allegation that the OP 2 with some ulterior motive intentionally cancelled the policy is thoroughly baseless as OP 2 did not have any locus standi in the matter of cancellation of the policy.
On the other hand, OP 1 has submitted photocopies of the filled up proposal form signed by the complainant, policy document which incorporates the terms and conditions in a comprehensive manner, Insurance Premium receipt, policy cancellation form signed by the policy holder, NEFT mandate form signed by the complainant, authorizing the OP 1 to use the complainant’s registered ECS A/C for disbursing all policy payouts through NEFT and communications made between complainant and the OP 1.
OP 1 in their written version points out that life insurance policy is a contract between the policy holder and the insurer and parties to it are bound by its terms and conditions. It is further brought to the attention that the proposal form was signed by the complainant and on the basis of the same the subject policy was issued and it is presumed that the proposal form was signed on being aware of the content of the form.
The Commission’s attention has been drawn by the OP 1 to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr. Reported in (1966) 3 SCR 500 in which the following observations were made by Hon’ble Apex Court:-
“……in interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.”
Apart from the above, the Op 1 has also relied upon several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in which it is said in no uncertain terms that the terms and conditions incorporated in an insurance contract are of paramount importance.
In the instant case, the proposal form was signed by the complainant and there is apparently no reason to believe that without being conscious of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, the complainant signed the proposal form. Similarly there is no reason to believe that the complainant had to sign some so called ‘blank paper’ or surrender request form under duress. No evidence is produced by the complainant to substantiate that the opposite parties got the insurance contract and surrender request form signed by the complainant keeping the complainant in dark. The complainant also does not appear to have signed the relevant papers without knowing the basic terms and conditions.
The complainant himself admitted in his petition that he was a defaulter in the matter of payment of the yearly premium and the OP 1 gave him several reminders for making payment of the premium.
Thus, it transpires that the policy was discontinued and money was transferred to the complainant’s account as per his entitlement, in a justified manner.
However OP 1 has expressed their willingness to settle the issue by offering the proposal for revival of the surrendered policy as a service gesture which will be subject to certain preconditions viz. payment of the due premiums, refund of the surrender value which has already been paid to him by the insurance company, health declaration etc.
On meticulous scrutiny of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that the OP 1 cancelled the policy after observing all the technical formalities and in compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract and OP 2 did not have any role in the matter of such cancellation. The complainant’s indifference if any, towards perusal of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract does not appear to have been exploited by the opposite parties. Question of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice does not arise.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.49/2018 be and the same succeeds on contest but on part.
The opposite party No.1 i.e. Max Life Insurance Co. will revive the policy in strict compliance of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, on payment of all the due premiums by the complainant and after realizing the surrender value of the policy already paid back to the complainant by the OP 1. However there is no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in
