Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
IFFCO Tokio Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Bhabani Prasad Basu & Ms. Snigdha Basu
and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2675 of 2010 and 1043 of 2013
Decided on 24.3.2017
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Master Insurance Policy—Refusal to renew policy—District Forum allowed complaint and directed insurance company to renew policies and also provide them compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment—District Forum also directed them to pay Rs.20,000/- as cost for making derogatory remarks against functioning of District Forum—Petitioner could not be forced to extend insurance cover for an indefinite period—Insurance is a contract between two parties on the terms and conditions mutually settled between them—MOU itself provides an exit clause to either of parties to terminate agreement between them—Insurance Company was well within its rights to terminate agreement—No reasonable basis to agree with conclusion arrived at by District Forum, duly affirmed by State Commission that petitioner Insurance Company was liable for deficiency in service in not granting renewal of mediclaim policy— Remarks made by District Forum regarding functioning of petitioner Insurance Company to be expunged as they have been made without any reasonable ground or basis—Directions to give compensation on that account is also struck down—Orders passed by State Commission and District Forum set aside and consumer complaints dismissed. (Paras 19 to 23)
Result: Revision Petitions allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—Revision Petition, RP No. 2675/2010 has been filed by the Opposite Party (OP) Insurance Company known as IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.05.2010, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal, FA/102/2010, “IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited versus Bhabani Prasad Basu & Ors.”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order, passed by the District Forum Kolkata Unit II in consumer complaint No. CC/433/2008, filed by the present respondents, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
2. Revision Petition No. 1043/2013 has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, by the same Insurance Company against the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the State Commission in FA/61/2012, “IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited vs. Samir Kumar Ghosh”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum dated 19.01.2012, in consumer complaint No. 18/2009, filed by the complainant Samir Kumar Ghosh, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.
3. This single order shall dispose of both the revision petitions described in the heading above and a copy of the same be placed on each file.
4. Briefly stated, the facts involved in these cases are that the opposite party (OP), the Golden Multi Services Club Limited, stated to be a unit of Golden Trust Financial Services located at Kolkata, has been arranging Medi-claim insurance for the benefit of their members with various insurance companies from time to time. They obtained the insurance cover from the New India Assurance Company for the years 1998 to 2002, and thereafter, the said cover was arranged from the National Insurance Company upto 2005. From the year 2005 onwards, they obtained the said cover from the petitioner/OP IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. There was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the said insurance company with M/s. Golden Multi Services Club, according to which, the insurance cover was to be provided to the members of the Club, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the said Memorandum of Understanding. The Golden Multi Services Club (hereinafter referred as Club), obtained a master insurance policy from the insurer, under which the members were being insured and issued the necessary certificates. In RP 2675/2010, the complainants Bhabani Prasad Basu and Snigadha Basu, who as stated in the consumer complaint No. 433/3008, were first insured by the New India Assurance Company for a sum of Rs.80,000/- each for the period 20.03.1998 to 19.03.1999. The Policy was being renewed from year to year till the year 2001-2002. Thereafter, the policy was obtained from the National Insurance Company from 23.03.2002 to 22.03.2003 and was renewed for two subsequent years. The present petitioner IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited issued them the policy from 15.06.2005 to 14.06.2006, which was subsequently renewed for the period 15.06.2006 to 14.06.2007 and then for the period 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2008. However, the petitioner refused to renew the said medi-claim policy for further period, saying that the MOU between the petitioner and the Club did not subsist after 30.06.2007 and hence, the petitioner had no legal liability to issue a fresh insurance or renew the old policy. As per the petitioner, they had revised their insurance scheme with effect form 01.03.2007, the reasons for which were conveyed to the Club vide letter dated 22.01.2007. It was stated that the insurance scheme as per the MOU would stand terminated by June 2007, but the insurance cover affected till that date, would be honoured by the petitioners. The case of the petitioner, as stated in their letter dated 16.05.2007, addressed to the Club is that it was not viable for them to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
