Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 in their report before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik (the District Forum) while admitting that there was Janata Personal Accident (Group) Policy of Rs.5,00,000/- of the deceased through the Bank by the Insurance Company bearing no. 47/00344 with endorsement no. 47/30232 stated that the same was subsequently cancelled with effect from 04.06.2002 under the terms and conditions of the policy authorising the company to terminate the same at any time and accordingly such notice dated 20.05.2002 was given to the Bank which was duly received by it. Not only this policy was cancelled but the policy of all other branches of NAMCO Bank were also cancelled at the same time. However, while cancelling the policy the pro-rata premium was required to be refunded as per condition no. 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy which was not done by the company and as such there was technical-cum-legal hitch in treating the policy as cancelled legally. Thus, the said cancellation of policy had automatically became infructuous.

2/ opposite party no. 2 has not been filed. However, as per the order of the District Forum the respondent no. 2 had openly taken the side of the complainant and they have declared and the fault is given to the OP no. 1. According to their (Bank) saying they have no concern with the above dispute and they should be released from the above case and such prayer they have been made.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik (the District Forum) observed that the opposite party no. 1 is taking the shelter of conditional no. 5 which is out of the conditions which are the terms and conditions of the agreement deed. According to condition no. 5, that after giving the written notice the insurance policy can be cancelled and the right of which is with the Insurance Company this notice is to be sent to that person who had taken the policy. But before how many days the notice is to be given about which it is not clearly mentioned in it. In spite of it, in our opinion, it is essential the limitation of generally within 30 days. The insurance company has been admitted that they have given the notice to the opposite party no. 2 only of the cancellation of the policy. The opposite party no. 1 had mentioned the same under paragraph no. 7 B in their written statement that it is not expected to send the notice to every consumer personally. It means that the opposite party no. 1 had not sent any notice to any consumer about the cancellation of the policy. In this way the opposite party no. 1 has violated the condition no. 5. In this section he had been given the right to cancel the policy. But in our (Forums) opinion they cannot do that. The explanation of which we are giving further.

        

Because in any case the interest awarded at 18% per annum by the District Forum is excessive, exorbitant and against the well settled law laid by this Commission and the Honble Supreme Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.

A copy of the policy has been placed on record. It is seen from the policy that the policy was in the name of respondent no. 2, i.e., the Nasik Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd.,/ OP - Bank and not in the name of respondent no. 1. Hence, when the petitioner invoked clause no. 5 of the conditions it issued a letter dated 20.05.2002 regarding cancellation of JPA (Long Term) Policy/ Endorsement no. 47/30109, 30232, 30647, 30704 and 30804. The said notice was issued to the Branch Manager of the NMC Bank Ltd., The letter reads as follows:

Needless to mention that as the policy stands cancelled with effect from 04.06.2002 on claim of whatsoever nature will be entertained/ tenable/ payable for any damages occurred on or after 04.06.2002 which please note.
Thereafter the petitioner realised that since the said premium on this pro-rata part thereof for the portion of the current insurance period had not been released the said notice had become infructuous. Thereafter they sent another letter dated 06.09.2006 addressed to the Manager, Ghoti Branch of Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., which read as follows: