Deepak Kumar Sabharwal, H.No.712/8, Street No.8, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
1- Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
2- Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Sundram Towers, 45-46, Whites Road, Chennai- 600 014.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present: Sh. Gurcharan Singh Adv. for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Rajiv Abhi Adv. for opposite party no.2.
O R D E R
RAJESH KUMAR, MEMBER:
1- In this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, brief facts are that complainant opened a saving bank account no.703-1-0012393 with opposite party no.1 and also obtained credit card no.4129-0380-8334-4959 with limit of Rs.25000/-. In statement of October, 2006, complainant found that Rs.14,522.97 was shown as credit. On enquiry, bank informed that Rs.10174/- were debited to Royal Sundram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd., Chennai opposite party no.2. Complainant informed the bank that he never got himself insured from that insurance company, nor he ever authorized opposite party no.1 to debit any amount to the insurance company on his behalf and without his consent, opposite party no.1 credited the amount from his account. They failed to give any reply. On scrutiny of statements, he found that bank was charging interest on monthly basis on these premium amounts credited to his account without his consent. Opposite party no.2 never insured complainant and issued health insurance policy of Rs.2 lacs and charged Rs.5088/- as premium. Complainant instructed the opposite party bank not to release any amount from his credit card account on account of installment of insurance policy. It means that both opposite parties have some hidden understanding to insure the persons having credit cards with the bank and transfer the premium amount without their consent. Further, the opposite party bank showed credit of Rs.13019.99 on 31.8.2007 and debited amount of Rs.10174/- to insurance company without his consent. Claiming such act of opposite party amounting to deficiency in service, instituted this complaint for direction to opposite party to reverse entries from his account which were illegally credited in his account and pay him damages of Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony and litigation costs of Rs.5500/-.
2- Opposite party no.1 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded exparte.
3- Opposite party no.2 by way of reply, pleaded that complaint is not maintainable against them, as no cause of action disclosed by complainant. Opposite party no.1 for benefit of its customers, avails group insurance polices covering various customers, remitting premium in respect of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 only act upon instruction given by opposite party no.1, who receive premiums from large number customer’s by debiting their respective credit card accounts after getting their consent to opt for the polices which are done through tele-campaign. Such debits are done by opposite party no.1 only and realized by SCB Cards from their customers. In this case, opposite party no.2 had issued health shield insurance policy no.HS00018923000100 original taken on 29.9.2004 valid from 25.9.2004 to 24.9.200 and thereunder, complainant had renewed the same for 3 times i.e. 25.9.2005 to 24.9.2006, 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007, 25.9.2007 to 24.9.2008, for which, opposite party no.2 got remittance from opposite party no.1, time to time, for issuance of the renewal of policies. Opposite party no.1 debited that amount pursuant to telephonic acceptance and approval of complainant. Complainant wrote a letter dated 6.11.2007 that he is not interested in renewal of the policy, upon which opposite party no.2 cancelled the policy and refunded Rs.3562/- on pro rata basis after retaining 30% of Rs.5088/- in the month of November, 2007, which was credited into the account of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 sent a policy renewal confirmation letter on 3.8.2007 and even after receipt of that letter, complainant did not intimate opposite party no.2that the complainant was disinterested in renewing the policy. However, on 6.11.2007, complainant requested for cancellation, upon which opposite cancelled the policy on pro rata basis, since the complainant intimated abut his disinterest only after a lapse of three months of policy inception, as the policy was made on 19.9.2007. Complainant neither wrote to opposite partyno.2 giving specific instruction to cancel the policy nor did he allege that policy documents were received by him on 19th September, 2007. All other assertions of complaint have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4- Contesting parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.
5- From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that the complainant was having health shield insurance policy for the year 25.9.2004 to 24.9.2005 (Ex.R1). Then took health shield insurance from opposite party no.2 for the year 25.9.2005 to 24.9.2006. Thereafter, complainant took third policy for the year 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007 and policy from 25.9.2007 to 24.9.2008. The premium for the health shield insurance policy, has been deducted by opposite party bank and credited to account of opposite party no.2 against insurance policy. Complainant has been maintaining his credit card account no. 4129-0380-8334-4959 regularly and must be getting the statements from opposite party no.1 monthly as well as yearly, from where, complainant can visualize and see his balance and account status with the opposite party no.1. It is clear from statement of account of September, 2006 Ex.C3 that Rs.5087/- have been deducted against the premium of health shield insurance policy and credited to opposite party no.2. It is quite clear that the complainant has been taking policies from 25.9.2004 to 24.9.2008 regularly and paying the premium of the health shield insurance company to the opposite party. It is also worth to mention here that the complainant requested to opposite party no.2 on
6.11.2007 that he is not interested in renewal of the policy and acting upon the same, opposite party no.2 had cancelled the policy and refunded Rs.3562/- on pro rata basis after retaining 30% of Rs.5088/- in the month of November, 2007, which was credited into the account of opposite party no.1. Since the policy was issued at the instructions of opposite party no.1. It is clear that on 6.11.2007, complainant vide letter Ex.R6 requested opposite party for cancellation of the policies and insurance company acted immediately and cancelled the policy and refunded the amount which was due to the complainant. Plea of the complainant that he was not aware of the polices done by opposite party no.2, does not seem to be genuine. Complainant alleges that he is not aware of the policy done by opposite party no.2 and both the bank and insurance company are hand in glove with each other and he has not got himself the insurance policy from opposite party no.2 nor he authorized the bank to debit any amount to the insurance company. The bank and insurance company are acting on their own behalf and deducting insurance premium from his bank account maintained with opposite party no.1. The complainant further alleges that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite party bank by debiting the amount against opposite party no.2 from his credit card account illegally.
6- The Fora reach at the conclusion that complainant was having full knowledge about the polices which he had taken for the year 2004 to 2008 and amount has been deducted from his credit card account. As he can not say that he was not aware about the deduction of the premium from his account to the insurance policies and it is hard to believe that opposite party of their own, deducted the premium from his account. H is well aware of the facts and terms and conditions of the policies and lastly, when he wrote letter Ex.R6 date 6.11.2007, opposite party no.2 acted immediately and discontinued the policy and amount which was payable to the complainant was refunded to the complainant on pro rata basis. After cancellation of policy and amount of premium was refunded on pro rata basis. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar I(2008)CPJ-191(HaryanaState Commission). It is also clear that the complainant has never written any letter to opposite party no.2 earlier to 6.11.2007. Complainant could not able to submit any proof or any letter written to opposite party no.2 regarding cancellation of earlier policies. Had he written any letter to cancel the earlier policies, opposite party would have immediately acted and cancel those policies, as they did after receipt of letter dated 6.11.2007 (Ex.R6). It is clear that transactions made by the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2, are genuine and legal and in the notice of the complainant, as he has been receiving bank statements regularly monthly and yearly and also he was regularly operating his account. Hence, no deficiency in rendering service to the complainant is reflected or proved. Hence, finding no merits in the complaint, the same is dismissed.