Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/129/2017

Alaghammal W/o K.Tangavelu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bajaj Aliance Life Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ramesh

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                            Date of Complaint Filed : 14.03.2017

                                             Date of Reservation      : 23.06.2022

                                             Date of Order               : 07.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,            : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.129/2017

THURSDAY, THE 7^th DAY OF JULY 2022

Alaghammal,

W/o. K.Tangavelu,

No.36,Perumal Koil Street,

ChinnaSalem,

Villupuram District.                                                                                                            ... Complainant               

..Vs..

1) Manager,

   Bajaj Aliance Life Insurance co Ltd.,

   No.252, Cuddalore Main Road,

   Sai Motors Upstairs,

   Near Thasildar Office,

   Vriddhachalam- 606001.

 

2) General Manager,

    Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd.,

    Door No.56/21,

    Giriguja Enclave, 1st Floor,

    1^st Avenue, Shastri Nagar,

    Adyar, Chennai - 20.                                                                                                                 ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : M/s. K. Ramesh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties       : M/s. S. Namasivayam

 

        On perusal of records and having treated the written arguments of the Complainant as oral arguments and after having heard the oral arguments of the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the Complainant along with costs.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

                The Complainant  took Insurance from the opposite parties vide Master Policy No. 0144018892 on 08.02.2010 and the premium amount to be paid is Rs.10,000/- p.a. The Complainant was paying the said premium to "The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd" without fail on 08.02.2010 the 1^st Installment of Rs.10,000/-, on 09.02.2011 the 2^nd Installment of Rs.10,000/-, on 04.02.2012 the 3^rd Installment of Rs.10,000/-on 12.02.2013 the 4^th Installment of  Rs.10,000/- and finally on 05.02.2014 the 5^th Installment of Rs.10,000/-. As she wanted to surrender the policy she approached "The Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd" vide letter dated 18.02.2015 to surrender the policy. The Complainants Bank  vide letter dated 13.03.2015 informed the Complainant that surrender shall be made only through her office and directed the Complainant to approach the opposite parties The Complainant vide letter dated 18.05.2015 requested the opposite parties to pay back the premium amount paid by her from 08.02.2010 to 05.02.2014 for a period of 5 years a sum of Rs.50,000/-But there is no reply from the opposite parties. To her shock and surprise the Complainant on getting information from her Bank dated 21.07.2015 addressing the opposite parties that they have collected through their Bank only 3 premiums vide dated 08.02.2010, 09.02.2011 and 04.02.2012 and 2 premiums vide dated 12.02.2013 and 05.02.2014 not been collected by the opposite parties though she had paid the entire premium amount of Rs.50,000/ for 5 years, but there is no reply from the opposite parties.  Though the policy period has already over the opposite parties did not take any steps to pay the premium amount to the Complainant and have not given any reply to the letter sent by the Complainant.  As there is no reply from the opposite parties on her letter dated 18.05.2015 and to the letter sent by her Bank dated 21.07.2015, she issued a legal notice through her Advocate dated 02.02.2017, but there is reply to the notice. Due to the Opposite Parties act, the Complainant suffers untold  mental agony which cannot be compensated unless the Opposite Parties have been punished for their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service rendered by them. The Opposite Party is liable for the deficiency in service rendered by them. Hence  the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:-

        The present complaint is misconceived misconstructed contrary to the contract between the parties and therefore untenable in law and deserves to be dismissed. The complaint is liable to dismissed on the ground on non joinder of necessary parties to the said case, for the reason being that the Complainant alleges that she has paid the policy premium amount of whole Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- each for five years) to MASTER POLICY HOLDER  I.e, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Only and also has communicated by way of letters to the said Master Policy Holder with regard to payment of premiums paid by her to them. The said averments clearly shows that the Complainant has made allegations against the said Master Policy Holder only and not against this Opposite Party. Further this Opposite Party has received only one premium amount from the Master Policy Holder against the said Complainant in the month of February 2010 and thereafter have not received any renewal premium amount from the said Master Policy Holder due to which the said policy of the Complainant got foreclosed for non payment of renewal premiums. The complaint is partly true to the extent that the Complainant paid the premium amount of Rs.10,000/- on 08.02.2010 as first installment is true and correct. This Opposite Party is unable to admit or deny the renewal premium payments made by the Complainant i.e., 2^nd 3^rd 4^th and 5^th as the Complainant herself has admitted that all the premium amounts are paid by her to the Master Policy Holder i.e., the Villapuram District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., at para 1 of the complaint and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The Complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. Besides, it is an established legal paradigm that compensation is to be awarded on the basis of material on record and that compensation awarded must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of injury, inconvenience, physical and mental caused to the Complainant by action or omission of the OP. Thus, in the instant case, the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation, as there is absolutely no material to substantiate his claim. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      The Complainant submitted her Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8  were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, no documents were marked.

5.     Points for Consideration

1.Whether the complaint is affected by non joinder of parties?

2.Whether the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice and   deficiency of service?

3.Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the complaint and for any other relief/s?

Point No.1:-

        It is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed sarve Sakthi Suraksha Policy, a group Insurance Policy bearing No.0144018892 dated 08.02.2010 of the Opposite Parties through “the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank”, when the Complainant approached the said Co-Operative Bank for getting benefits along with dividend under the said Policy, it was informed that she has to approach the Opposite Parties for any claim under the said Policy as found in Ex.A-4. Hence it is clear from Ex.A-4 that the Opposite Parties as Insurer were alone liable and responsible for any claim to be made, this Commission holds that the present complaint is not affected by non-Joinder of parties and the contention of the Opposite Parties in this regard is not sustainable. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-

It is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed sarve Sakthi Suraksha Policy, a group Insurance Policy bearing No.0144018892 dated 08.02.2010 of the Opposite Parties through “the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank”, by paying yearly premium of Rs.10,000/-, as found in Ex.A-1. The contention of the Complainant is that she had paid all the 5 yearly instalment of Rs.10,000/- each as per the Policy and when she approached the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank to surrender the said Policy by Ex.A-3, it was informed by the said Bank vide Ex.A-4 to surrender the said Policy with the Opposite Parties. By Ex.A-5 she had sent a Registered letter dated 18.05.2015 to the Opposite Parties and the said letter was returned as left. Further contended that to her shock and surprise the Complainant had received a letter from her Bank stating that the Opposite Parties had collected only 3 premiums paid on 08.02.2010, 09.02.2011 & 04.02.2012 and 2 premiums paid on 12.02.2013 & 05.02.2014 were not collected by the Opposite Parties, in spite of having paid 5 premiums totalling Rs.50,000/- by her and there was no reply from the Opposite Parties. Further contended that in spite of the Policy period was already over, the Opposite Parties had not taken any steps to pay the benefits under the said Policy and had sent any reply. Hence the act of the Opposite Parties she had suffered untold mental agony that cannot be compensated and the Opposite Parties to be punished for their unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed to her.

The contention of the Opposite Parties is that they had received only the first premium of Rs.10,000/- in the month of February, 2010 for the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank and thereafter had not received any premiums from the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank towards the Policy of the Complainant, for the same the Policy of the Complainant got foreclosed for non payment of renewal premiums. Further contended that as admitted by the Complainant all the premiums were paid to Master Policy Holder, Villupuram District Central Co-Operative Bank. Hence the Complainant had not proved any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. As the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency of service is upon the person who alleges.

On considering the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the Opposite Parties had received 3 yearly premiums totalling Rs.30,000/- for the month of February, 2010, February, 2011 and February 2012 from the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank and had failed to collect 2 premiums that has been paid by the Complainant for the month of February, 2013 and February, 2014, from the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank and instead contending that the Opposite Parties had received only one premium of Rs.10,000/- and since further premiums were not received the Policy of the Complainant was foreclosed, is not sustainable, as well as the letter of Master Policy Holder,  Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank addressed to the Opposite Parties on 21.07.2015 were misconstrued and pointed out that since the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank had committed to pay 2 premiums to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties were not liable to pay any amount under the Policy and they have not committed deficiency of service and the said documents relied by the Opposite Parties  would itself clearly shows and

proves that the Opposite Parties had received 3 premiums and had failed to collect 2 premiums from the Master Policy Holder, the Villupuram District Central Co-operative Bank of the Policy of the Complainant and inspite of the said letter dated 21.07.2015 addressed to them as well as the legal notice dated 02.02.2017, which the Opposite Parties had not responded, hence this Commission holds that there is a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.2 is answered.

Point No.3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.2, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the premiums received by them together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and also with the entitled benefits under the Policy as of February 2012, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs of the Proceedings.

        In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) being the premiums received by them together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and also with the entitled benefits under the Policy as on February 2012, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards compensation and mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs of the Proceedings, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  7^th of July 2022.  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	24.11.2009	Policy Certificate issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A2	-	Premium receipts paid by the Complainant
Ex.A3	18.02.2015	Letter sent by the Complainant to her Bank
Ex.A4	13.03.2015	Letter from the Bank to the Complainant
Ex.A5	18.05.2015	Letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	22.05.2015	Letter sent by the Complainant to her bank
Ex.A7	21.07.2015	Letter from the bank to the Opposite parties
Ex.A8	02.02.2017	Legal notice issued by the Complainant

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties :-

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                           T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                          B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                          MEMBER I                                                PRESIDENT