IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Once the premium was deducted, Appellant was required to immediately withdraw standing instructions given to Respondents and the Bank not to deduct premium for the period
(2) For the action of the Appellant in not doing so, deficiency in rendering service or unfair trade practice on part of Respondents is not attributable

JUDGMENT

Rajesh K. Arya, Member.—This appeal has been filed by the complainant (appellant herein) against order dated 22.10.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh) [in short ‘District Commission’] vide which his consumer complaint No.163 of 2019 was dismissed by the District Commission.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission was that on being proposed by HDFC Standard Life Insurance, the complainant opted for HDFC Life Premium Policy No.17202478 in the year 2014 and paid yearly premium amount on time. On 16.11.2018, he paid premium of Rs.3,00,000/- through Online Portal visa using HDFC Bank Master Card ending No.4311, which was duly acknowledged by the Opposite Parties vide e-mail dated 16.11.2018. Despite acknow-ledgement of payment, the Opposite Parties deducted Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.11.2018 from his savings account with HDFC Bank Limited for payment of aforesaid Policy. The complainant immediately wrote to the Opposite Parties on 06.12.2018 seeking cancellation of the Policy for having received double premium (Annexure C-5). When nothing was heard, he served a legal notice dated 10.01.2019 upon the Opposite Parties but to no avail. Hence, he filed complaint before the District Commission.

3. On the other hand, it was the case of opposite Parties No.1, 3 & 4 that the premium was again deducted because of the fact of non-cancellation of the mandate for direct debit by the complainant himself. Since, the complainant had executed the mandate form for direct debit, therefore, there was no necessity for paying the premium by him through online portal. However, on receipt of e-mail from the complainant, Opposite Parties vide e-mail dated 23.11.2018 responded to the same and accordingly, the excess amount received was credited to his account.

4. The parties led evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the Counsel for the contesting parties and going through the record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint as stated above.

6. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the District Commission dismissed the complaint merely on the ground of existence of the standing instructions, which was never denied by the appellant but it failed to consider the written and verbal assertions made by the appellant. It was stated that not a single payment was ever done by auto payment mode for all those years and the option of payment by credit card was opted and there was never been an incident of double payment in the electronic system of the opposite parties except in the year in dispute when they intentionally extracted double payment and retained that for considerable period. It was further stated that despite acknowledgement of payment again on 19.11.2018 taking advantage of the bank’s counterpart, the opposite parties deducted Rs.3 Lakhs from the savings bank account of the complainant with HDFC Bank Ltd. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned order be set aside and relief sought in the complaint be awarded.

7. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents No.1, 3 & 4 argued that at the time of submission of proposal form, the complainant had submitted Mandate form for direct debit of the premium amount from his bank account and when the mandate form was submitted to the opposite parties, there was no requirement of payment of premium through debit card. It was further stated that once a Mandate is registered with the opposite parties and with the bank also, the premium is automatically withdrawn from the bank account and credited to the other account and it is an automatic process, which takes place unless the mandate is cancelled. It was further stated that when the premium was paid by the complainant through debit card, he should have immediately withdrawn the mandate from the bank, so that, the premium could not be deducted again. It was further stated that on getting email da