Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/115/2020

Robin Noyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara HSBC, Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kumar, Shiv Kumar & Joy Adv.

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Appeal No	:	A/115/2020
Date  of  Institution	:	26/08/2020
Date   of   Decision	:	09/06/2022

 

 

 

 

 

Robin Noyal son of Sh. Noyal Masih, Resident of House No.1040/1, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

 

…. Appellant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1.   Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at C-31 & C-32, First Floor, Connaught Circle, New Delhi – 110001.

 

2.   The Managing Director, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, having its Regd. Office at C-31 & C-32, First Floor, Connaught Circle, New Delhi – 110001.

 

3.   The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh (Branch Office Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited).

…… Respondents

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Vishal Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant.
		None for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
		Sh. Vikas Goel, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2020 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh)(for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. Lower Commission’), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/61/2019, which reads as under:-

“8.  Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 

 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that he purchased a Smart Future Plan from Respondents/Opposite Parties bearing Policy No.15000272047, which is one of the policies floated in the joint venture of the Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited. The premium of the said plan was Rs.50,000/- with a premium payment term of 10 years and the lock-in-period provided was 5 years. The Appellant/ Complainant was told that he has flexibility to change the payment mode from annually to monthly. Accordingly, the Appellant/Complainant made several requests to the Respondents/Opposite Parties to convert the premium plan of the Policy from annually to monthly as per para 2.2 of the Policy, but to no success. Eventually, the Appellant/Complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 upon the Respondents/Opposite Parties, but the same did not fructify. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondents/Opposite Parties pleaded that the Appellant/Complainant submitted a request with respect to Standing Instruction Mandate with the Bank and also requested to change the premium payment mode from yearly to monthly basis. Accordingly, vide letter dated 06.01.2017 the Appellant/Complainant was informed that as per the terms of the Policy Contract, the premium payment method pertaining to the Policy in question cannot be converted to monthly basis since the terms and conditions of the Policy clearly provide for the option of changing of premium payment mode only when the minimum premium is Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 to which the Respondents/Opposite Parties duly replied vide letter dated 10.01.2018. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Respondents/ Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
4.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. Lower Commission dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant/ Complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.    
5.      Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.
6.      We have heard the Learned Counsel  for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
7.      After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
8.      Relying upon Clause 2.2 of the Policy Contract provided in the Brochure, which deals with change in premium payment mode, the Respondents/ Opposite Parties declined the request of the Appellant/Complainant seeking conversion of premium payment mode from annual to monthly basis as the premium payment mode can be converted only if the annualized premium is equal to or more than minimum annualized premium applicable for proposed mode of premium payment. For the sake of precision, the said clause is reproduced below:-

“2.2 Change in Premium Payment Mode: - You may change your Premium payment mode anytime during the Policy Term, by submitting a written request to us, subject to your giving us a 60 days written notice for such change, provided your annualized premium is equal to or more than minimum annualized premium applicable for proposed mode of premium payment.”

 

9.      Record transpires, the afore-extracted clause has also been considered by the Ld. Lower Commission while recording a categorical finding to the effect that the Respondents/Opposite Parties rightly rejected the request of the Appellant/ Complainant in accordance with the terms of the Policy Contract as the policy in question cannot be converted into monthly premium payment mode since the said policy does not meet the threshold requirement for initiating the request for conversion of premium payment mode in consonance with the Clause 2.2 of the policy contract. In this backdrop, to our mind, the Ld. Lower Commission has rightly concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Respondents/ Opposite Parties. In nutshell, the Ld. Lower Commission had dealt with all the above said deficiencies threadbare and dismissed the Complaint, which we feel does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
10.      In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
12.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

09^th June, 2022                                

Sd/-

                                  (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                  (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”