Complaints filed on: 04-03-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 28-10-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER , 2022

P R E S E N T

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 30 OF 2021

T.G.Raghavendra Babu S/o D.Gundappa,

R/at Nandagokular Nilaya, Opp:Sridevi

Ladies Hostel, Sira Road, Sira Gate,

Tumakuru City.

……….Complainant

(Sri. D.Prabhakara., Adv.,)

V/s

Canara HSBS Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Life Insurance Company Limited,

(IRDAI Reg No.136), Regd No.Unit No.208,

18 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001.

Sridevi Group of Institutions Branch,

Sira Road, Tumakuru.

Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of

Commerce Life Insurance Savings cum

Protection Plan, Canara Bank, SS Puram Branch,

Tumakuru-572 102.

(OP1 by M/s/Sri. Guru Law Associates)

(OP2 by Sri. Mohamed Afroze Ahamed, Adv.,)

(OP No.3 – Exparte.)

                                                :O R D  E R :

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH -  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to direct the Opposite Parties to correct the name of nominee in the insurance policy and to include I.D. Number of the complainant in the said policy or to direct the Opposite Parties to repay the policy amount to the complainant with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards causing mental pain, agony, communication expenses along with interest at 12% Per Annum. 

2.       In the present case, 1^st Opposite Party is the Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory, Canara HSBS Oriental Bank of Commerce, Life Insurance company Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter called as OP No.1), 2^nd Opposite Party is the Manager, Canara Bank, Tumkur (hereinafter called as OP No.2) and Sri.Chalapathi, Sale officer, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Savings Cum Protection Plan, Tumakuru (hereinafter called as OP No.3).

3.       It is the case of the complainant that the complainant obtained the insurance policy from OP No.2 through OP No.3.  OP Nos. 2 & 3 were working under the OP No.1.  At the time of issuance of said policy, the OP No.3 had suppressed the entire actual benefits of said policy and the complainant had given representation on 30.01.2020 through letters and thereby sought for rectify the name of the nominee as stated in the application.  The OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not corrected or rectified the name of the nominee since the date of issuance of the policy till filing the date of present complaint and the OP Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to register the I.D. number in the policy.  The OP Nos. 1 to 3 have not comply the request of the complainant, though the complainant has got issued legal notice on 22.01.2021.  Hence, this complaint.     

4.       After issuing notice by this Commission, the OP No.3 has not appeared before this Commission.  Hence, the OP No.3 placed Ex-parte.  The OP Nos. 1 & 2 were appeared through their respective counsels and filed their individual versions. 

4(a)    The OP No.1 has denied all the allegations made by the complainant as false and wrong.  The OP No.1 has admitted that they issued the insurance policy bearing No.0111322913 with risk commencement date:14.08.2020 towards the complainant after completely understanding and satisfying by the complainant with terms and conditions of the said policy.  The OP No.1 has submitted that he has duly informed on the features of the plan at the time of filing the proposal form and complainant has also declared that he had read and understood all the features of the policy and that all the facts mentioned in the proposal form are true and correct.  Further the OP No.1 has submited that the OP No.1/company was in receipt of a request from the complainant regarding the correction in the nominee name under the said policy.  The said request was processed by the OP No.1/company without any delay and correct nominee details were updated in the policy record and the same was informed to the complainant vide OP No.1 company’s letter dated:10.02.2021 and further submitted that there is no any deficiency in service by the OP No.1.  Hence, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.   

5.       In the version, the OP No.2 has submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant, prima-facie is not maintainable and not sustainable either in law or on facts.  The OP No.2 has admitted that the complainant has customer saving bank account in OP No.2 and OP No.1 is associated products at OP No.2.  Further, the OP No.2 admitted that the complainant paid the insurance through OP No.2 to the OP No.1 and OP No.2 has also admitted that, the complainant has sent a request letter to OP No.2.  Further, submitted that it is the duty of the OP No.1 to change the name of the nominee in the insurance policy of the complainant and OP No.1 has also changed/corrected the name of the nominee in the said policy of the complainant on 19.10.2021.  For that, there is not any deficiency in service of OP No.2 in the present case and the OP No.2 denied all other allegations made by the complainant against the OP No.2 as false and wrong and hence prays to dismiss the complaint against OP No.2 with heavy costs. 

6.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence with six documents, which marked as Ex.P1 to P6.  One Shri.Arindam Mishra, Manager Legal of OP No.1 has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 bank and filed 03 documents which were marked as Ex.R1 to R3.  One Shri Deepak M.S., Manager of Canara Bank, Tumkur has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and produced 01 document which was not marked. 

7.       We have heard the arguments of complainant, OP No.1 and OP No.2 with written brief of complainant, OP No.1 and OP No.2.  The points that would arise for determination as:

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

8.        Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1:  Partly in the Affirmative

Point No.2: As per final order for the below

:R E A S O N S:

9.       The counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP No.2 had issued policy through Opponent No.3 in favour of the complainant, the OP No.1 is the registered office and the OP Nos. 2 & 3 are working under control of OP No.1 and same is admitted by the OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Further, the counsel for the complainant has submitted that OP No.3 has suppressed the entire actual benefit of the said policy, the OP No.3 ought to have disclose the entire benefit of the said policy and thereby OP No.3 shows the deficiency in his service and also OP No.3 has committed breach of trade while conducting business with complainant.  But the OP No.1 has produced Ex.R1/annexure1/the insurance policy papers and OP No.1 has also argued that the complainant has signed proposal form/addendum and it can be assumed that the complainant is well aware about the fact of actual benefit of the policy.  It is the responsibility of the complainant to know the all benefits and terms and conditions of the policy before signing/taking the policy.  Hence, we have not agreed with that the OP No.3 has suppressed the actual benefit of the said policy while issuing of the policy.   

10.     Further, the complainant has submitted that on 30.11.2020 the complainant has given representation through letters thereby sought for rectify the name of nominee as stated in the application and also requested for register the e-mail of the complainant i.e.

11.     The complainant prays for either rectified the name of nominee in the said policy or to repay the policy amount with interest to the complainant.  When the OP Nos. 1 & 2 has submitted that the name of the nominee was rectified, then question of repayment of policy amount does not arise.  Further, the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain, agony, communication expenses along with interest @ 12% PA.  But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he is entitled for the compensation as prayed.  Hence, same was not considered.  But, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 have compelled the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence, OP Nos. 1 to 3 shall liable to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.4,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  The OP No.1 is the Authority to issue the rectified policy to the complainant.  Hence, the OP No.1 is liable to send rectified copy of the policy bearing No.0111322913 as prayed by the complainant and to register the e-mail ID in the policy.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-       

:O R D E R:

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part with cost.

The OP No.1 is directed to send rectified copy of the policy bearing No.0111322913 as prayed by the complainant and to register the e-mail ID in the policy. 

The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.4,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant.

The OP Nos. 1 to 3 are further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.

Furnish copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.