Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR
B.A. SHAIKH, S.B. SAWARKAR, JJ.
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Yavatmal District Co-Op. Bank Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal No. A/02/1500
Decided On : 05-06-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. W.G. Paunikar.
The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support contentions in a contract dispute, highlighting the requirement for material to justify claims and decisions.
Headnote:
Insurance Scheme - Contract Dispute - 20.2.1999 - 1.4.1999 - [GOI, GIC] - The court discussed the contract dispute between the complainant and the insurance company regarding the change in the insurance scheme from 20.2.1999 to 1.4.1999. The court highlighted the lack of evidence from the appellant to support the contention that the policy scheme was changed due to directions from the Government of India (GOI) or the General Insurance Company (GIC). The court found the appellant's contentions to be devoid of material and rejected them, concluding that the appellant had withdrawn from the contract and refused to accept further premium, indicating deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a bank manager, entered into a contract with an insurance company for a personal accident insurance scheme. The insurance company later changed the scheme, leading to a dispute over the contract terms and premium payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company failed to provide evidence to support the contention that the policy scheme was changed due to directions from the GOI or GIC. The court concluded that the appellant's contentions were devoid of material and rejected them, affirming the forum's order.
Issues: Dispute over contract terms, premium payments, and changes in the insurance scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to provide evidence to support the contention that the policy scheme was changed due to directions from the GOI or GIC led to the rejection of their contentions and the affirmation of the forum's order.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order of the forum was confirmed. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is filed against the order of Yavatmal, DCDRF issued on 1.9.2002, in CC No. 213 of 1999 granting the complaint and directing that the OP shall accept the premium of the policies from the complainant as per the contract dated 20.2.2002, and shall give benefit of policy to the beneficiaries also the OP shall pay Rs. 2000/- as cost to the complainant.
2. The brief facts leading to above complaint are that the complainant who is Manager of the Yavatmal District Central Co-Operative bank Ltd., Main branch Yavatmal, filed complaint against the OP No. 1, which is Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Yavatmal and OP No. 2 which is Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Amravati. The complainant complained that the OP No. 1 on 20.2.1999 made a contract with the complainant to provide the Janata Personal Accident Insurance scheme through the bank of complainant for the benefit of banks subsidiary institution and members. The scheme was of Insurance from accident for the beneficiary/members of the bank for 12 years for the age group of 5 to 70 of Rs. 4,00,000/- by payment of one time premium of Rs. 195/-
3. The OP made the contract on 20.2.1999 and therefore the complainant issued a circular for all their members to take the benefit of above scheme contracted by the bank with OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 also gave an advertisement on 13.3.1999 in Dainik Loksatta and informed the people about the Insurance scheme accepted by the OP and being executed by complainant.
4. The OP on 1.3.1999 accepted Rs. 11,115/- as premium and executed policies for the list of people sent with premium.
5. However the complainant thereafter collected the premium from the subsidiary branches and associated institutions as per the above contract and sent the second installment of premium on 10.5.1999 of Rs. 7,605/- one DD of Rs. 15,590/- and another DD of Rs. 18,330/- as premium to the OP to cover the members. However the OP No. 1 vide their letter dated 13.5.1999 returned the amount and informed that the scheme of insurance contracted previously has changed and a new scheme is introduced from 1.4.1999 under the new scheme. The insurance was of Rs. 1,00,000/- for a duration of 5 years and the premium was only Rs. 192/-. The scheme only available for a institution where the member count was more that 10,000/- The OP No. 1 suggested to change the contract as above.
6. The complainant therefore made a complaint that thus the OP No. 1 and 2 broke the condition of the contract and refused to accept the premium which tantamount to deficiency in service. The OP No. 1 never informed about the change in the scheme prior to 10.5.1999 and also there was no condition to change the conditions of the policy in the contract made between the complainant and the OP. The complainant accordingly informed all the members. Thus, now the OP No’s 1 and 2 do not have the legal right to withdraw the scheme and changed the condition.
7. The complainant therefore, on 14.6.1999 sent a notice to the OP to continue the scheme as per the contract dated 20.2.1999 and to withdraw the letter dated 13.5.1999. The OP received the notice but did not reply to it. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint before the Yavatmal DCDRF with a request to:-
(A) Direct the OP to continue the scheme of insurance as per the contract dated 20.2.1999.
(B) OP to accept the premium amount, withdraw the letter dated 13.5.1999 and give benefit to all the members and beneficiary.
(C) OP to provide compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.
8. After notice from the DCDRF the OP No. 1 and 2 appeared and through written version filed their say:
(A) OP accepted to have contracted for the scheme on 20.2.1999 and received the premium on 1.3.1999.
(B) OP stated that they have returned the premium sent to them on 10.5.1999 because the Govt. of India (for short GOI) and the General Insurance Company (for s
