State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sr. Branch Manager, Diamond Harbour ... vs Shri Manik Chandra Pahari & Or. on 28 May, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET, KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA/85/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24.12.2012 in Case No. CC/251/2011of District South 24 Parganas DF) DATE OF FILING :24.01.2013 DATE OF ORDER:28.05.2014 APPELLANT : The Senior Branch Manager, Diamond Harbour Branch, L I C of India, Municipal Market Complex, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas RESPONDENTS : 1. Shri Manik Chandra Pahari, Village & P.O.-Mahendragunj, P.S. Sagar, District : 24 Parganas (S), PIN-743373. 2. Gopal Nath, Agent of LICI, Code No. 10193427, Village & P.O.Khas Rankur, P.S. Sagar, Pin-743373. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya. HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jagannath Bag. FOR THE APPELLANT : Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT No.1 : Mr. Avijit Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate. Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
The OP No.1 in Case No. 251/2011 before the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed therein, has preferred this appeal.
It has been the contention of the Complainant in the case that he is a retired Teacher and he purchased 07 (seven) nos. Market Plus Policy from the OP No.1, namely, 417050027, 417050030-32, 417050050, 417050069 of Rs.25,000/- and 417050034 of Rs.22,000/-, by filing 07 (seven) proposal forms, through the Agent, being OP No.2, on 28.02.2007 and received the policies. After 04 (four) years, in urgent need of great amount of money for sophisticated ear surgery of his grandson, he applied for surrender of the said 07 (seven) policies to the OP No.1 on 07.02.2011, with a prayer for hand delivery of the cheque, which was allowed. But, the concerning officer, after putting the policy nos. in the computer, informed him that except the policy no. 417050050, other 06 (six) policies are correct; the status report says that no money has been deposited through cheque. Accordingly, he made an application to the OP No.1 on 14.02.2011 and met him personally, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. But, the OP No.1 informed him by a letter dated 04.04.2011 that the policy no. 417050050 was wrongly issued mistakenly and no question of payment of surrender value arises. Lastly, he also applied to the Insurance Ombudsman, but did not get any satisfactory answer. So, this case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP No.1 in its W.V. is that the Complainant had purchased 06 (six) Policy Bonds, out of the maturity proceeds of another policy, amounting to Rs.1,47,000/- and 06 (six) proposals were submitted by him. At the time of entering the proposal in the cash counter, the Cashier inadvertently entered the sixth proposal being no. 25499 in cash instead of cheque and it became policy no. 417050050. On verification, the said proposal was immediately cancelled and allotted a new proposal being no. 26137, which became policy no. 417050069. Accordingly, the previous policy, which was inadvertently and wrongly entered as cash instead of cheque was cancelled. However, due to machine error, the Policy Bond for the cancelled policy was also printed and the same was sent to the Complainant inadvertently due to inadvertence on the part of OP No.1. Further, on enquiry, the Agent, being OP No.2, informed that he had only submitted 06 (six) proposals of which 05 (five) proposals were for Rs.25,000/- and 01 (one) proposal was for Rs.22,000/-, total amounting to Rs.1,47,000/-. Taking advantage of the inadvertent mistake committed by the employees of OP No.1, the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman, who held that the Insurer has settled the claim for 06 (six) policies correctly and no liability can arise under a cancelled policy, and the decision of the Insurer is correct, which is upheld and the complaint was dismissed. Thus, the Complainant has not come with clean hands, but wants to take advantage of an inadvertent mistake committed by the employees of the OP No.1. The case of cash payment of Rs.25,000/- is baseless, motivated and malafide to cheat the OP No.1. Therefore, the complaint petition be dismissed.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any material and factual irregularity and inconsistency so as to make an interference in this appeal.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it is solely a case of First Unpaid Premium. Though the Complainant boasts of being a retired School Teacher, he purposely and motivatedly by taking advantage of an human error, made this test case. The Complainant did not produce the relevant money receipt against cash payment made by him in respect of the alleged policy no. 417050050, which he did not purchase and did not pay. He miserably failed to prove his case. The impugned judgment is based upon misconception and not a speaking one and done without proper perspective in the matter, and a very cryptic in nature.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that in between 04 (four) years have elapsed since the origin of the said policy in question. In fact, by the status report obtained on 09.02.2011, it was shown that it is a case of Cheque Dishonoured (DC), while it was paid by cash. There has been sheer/gross negligence on the part of the OP No.1.
It has been wholesomely shown by the OP No.1 that on the basis of a cheque issued in favour of the Complainant dated 14.02.2007 of Rs.1,47,056/-, the complainant obtained/purchased the Market Plus Policies amounting to Rs.1,47,000/-, which do constitute the cost of 06 (six) such policies, on 28.02.2007. The Complainant falls short of producing any paper to the effect that he purchased the Policy Bond bearing no. 417050050 by cash. Otherwise, why he did not purchase the said policy also by way of a singular cheque. It almost befell that taking advantage of an human error on the part of the establishment of OP No.1, he made this adventurous venture for wrongful gain in the matter. In fact, by a letter dated 07.02.2011, he only pressed the 02 (two) concerned policies bearing nos. 417050369 and 417050050 for getting surrender value with an evil mind and motive and immediately obtained sanction of hand delivery of the cheque. But, he mentions in his petition of complaint that on 07.02.2011 he applied for surrender of all his 07 (seven) Market Plus Policies to the OP No.1, which is a blatant lie. The status report of policy no. 417050050 dated 14.02.2011 shows clearly that there is no payment history for this policy and the status is cancelled. The order of the Insurance Ombudsman in regard to the dispute with premium of policy no. 417050050 made by this Complainant against the OP No.1, is elaborative and lucid in nature, in which the Complainant stated that he paid Rs.25,000/- to his Agent in cash for obtaining a seventh policy, but the Agent did not give him the money receipt and instead he was given the Policy Bond, whereas the Insurer produced their records to show that LA had applied for 06 (six) policies and the premium for the same was paid by recycling the matured proceeds of policy no. 412540371. The representative of the Insurance Company submitted a letter from Sri Sukhendu Bikash Giri, the Development Officer, confirming that the policyholder proposed for only 06 (six) policy, whose premium was paid after recycling the maturity amount of Rs.1,47,056/- by cheque no. 32289 dated 14.02.2007 against the policy no. 412540371. It was further seen that the cash deposit of Rs.25,000/- under policy no. 417050050 was an inadvertent mistake of the Cashier, and on discovering the same, the Insurer cancelled the policy and issued a fresh policy no. 417050369 to the policyholder. But, even after cancelling the policy, the Insurer committed further mistake in printing the Policy Bond of the cancelled policy, which is a serious service lapse on the part of the Insurer. However, it being human error, the policyholder cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from this error. This is a well reasoned order in the matter. It cannot be taken for granted that the Agent did not give him the money receipt and instead gave him the policy bond. The Development Officer, who made such policies of the Complainant also confirmed about only 06 (six) policies made by the Complainant. The case of purchasing the 06 (six) Market Plus Policy by the Complainant by way of a cheque of Rs.1,47,000/- is a proper one, in absence of production of the concerned money receipt. Such money receipt could also have been obtained by the Complainant by way of applying for duplicate of it from the OP No.1, which does not appear to have been applied for by him. There is gross abuse by the Complainant in using a wrong Policy Bond, which is a non-entity. Of course, there has been lapse on the part of the OP No.1 in the matter, who should have informed the Complainant in the matter forthwith or within a reasonable time and calling back the questioned Policy Bond, which was not done at all. It shows sheer callousness and negligence on the part of the OP No.1. There is also at least a conscious and active collaboration of the Agent in question, Gopal Nath, with the Complainant, who though named as OP No.2, did not venture out to contest the claim of the Complainant, if not complicity of the Development Officer concerned, Sukhendru Bikash Giri. Accordingly, the matter is required to be brought to the notice of the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India for taking necessary action against the erring officials. The Complainant acted mischievously taking advantage of faux pas, which was not corrected by the OP No.1. There was no animosity, or enmity of the OP No.1 with the Complainant. It was rather a test case of the Complainant to which the Ld. District Forum faulted. The impugned order is a lopsided one and without due consideration of the materials on record. The Ld. District Forum was misled in the matter. The nationalized Insurance Company is not a charitable institution to give away money to an unscrupulous claim. As the complaint is a frivolous/vexatious one, the Complainant is to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Ld. District Forum concerned within one month. Accordingly, the impugned order does not hold good.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent but without any cost. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed, and being a frivolous/vexatious one with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Ld. District Forum concerned within one month.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, P.B. No. 19953, Mumbai-400 021 for information, necessary action and compliance.
Sd/-
Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER