Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Bank of India – Petitioner
versus
Ashapurna Chandra and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.758 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 05/10/2012 in Appeal No. 387/2011 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 12.9.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vipin Jai, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick and Ms Manisha Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.3:Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Shubhranshu Padi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Conjecture or surmises - Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the foras below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises.
(2) Concurrent findings - It is a settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
(3) National Commission - The power of this Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order of State Commission – Services – banking & insurance - Deficiency in service by the petitioner - non-renewal of the policy within due date - Sufficient balance - The present revision petition has impugned this order of the State Commission on the ground that the bank account of the policy holder had insufficient balance as on the date of renewal and that he was aware of the same – National Commission has revisional jurisdiction, in exercise of its jurisdiction, it is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts especially when the findings on the facts of the lower fora are concurrent on facts - Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the foras below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises. In other words, evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered - The power of this Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the instant case it is seen from the records that the lower fora have concluded that the Bank had erred in not making the timely remittance to the insurance company towards the renewal of the premium of the policy holder despite availability of funds in the policy holder’s account. Even though there was sufficient balance available in the Bank account, the fact of making transfer on 18.08.2009 instead of 12.08.2009 by which date the policy had already lapsed is apparent from the records and the discussions in the order impugned – therefore, The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction - It is a settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction – Revision dismissed. [Paras 7 to 16]
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 05.10.2012 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in SC Case no.FA/387/2011 dismissing the appeal of the Revisionist and upholding the order of the District Forum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant’s husband opened a savings bank (SB) account with Bank of India (in short, ‘Bank’), Purulia Branch on 27.08.2007. The National Insurance Company Limited respondent no.3 herein/ complainant no.1 launched a mediclaim policy, viz., BOI National Swasthya Bima especially for the account holders of Bank of India and their family members. The husband of the complainant took the policy from 13.08.2007 to 12.08.2008 and was issued a policy certificate. He thereafter renewed the policy for the period from 13.08.2008 to 12.08.2009. According to the terms and conditions of the policy the premium amount was to be deducted by the Bank from the account of the account holder. The due date of premium amount was on 12.08.2009. The bank deducted an amount of Rs.2590 on 18.08.2009. However, the said amount was subsequently re-credited on 15.01.2010 to the said SB account. Members of the family were entitled to cashless treatment and reimbursement of the amount towards medical expenses. In May 2010, the policy holder was advised an FNAC test for a swelling in the neck which was diagnosed as Metastasis Squamous Cell Carcinoma. He approached BP Poddar Hospital and Medical Research Limited, Kolkata for better treatment but learnt that as the policy had lapsed on account of the Bank not debiting the premium amount from his SB account for renewal of the same on or before 12.08.2009, the policy was deprived of facility of cashless facility in medical treatment. The policy holder, finding no other alternative, availed medical treatment on payment of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3. The policy holder on 07.06.2010 approached the Bank regarding the non-deposit of the third premium amount to the National Insurance Company and was informed vide letter dated 10.06.2010 that he would be conveyed the decision in due course. He sent a legal notice to the Bank and National Insurance Company Limited Purulia Branch on 31.08.2010 demanding Rs.1,50,000/- which was duly acknowledged. He also lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purulia against the complainants which could not be settled amicably at the hearing on 02.12.2010.

4. Alleging deficiency in service by the petitioner for non-renewal of the policy question within the due date, the respondent/complainants approached the District Forum, Purulia seeking the following reliefs:—

(i) For giving direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from 31.08.2010 to the complainants towards damage for non-renewal of the policy in question;

(ii) For giving direction to the opposite parties to renew the policy in question for further period for the coverage of the benefit of the present complainants;

(iii) For giving direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants for harassment and mental pain; and

(iv) For giving direction to the opposite parties to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.

5. The District Forum, Purulia allowed the appeal vide its order dated 1st August 2011 and held as follows:—

That the Consumer Complaint no. 7 of 2011 be and the same is allowed in part on contest without costs against the OPs.

That the OP No.1 (National Insurance Company Limited, Purulia Branch) has no liability at all for payment of damage for non-renewal of the policy in question as claimed by the complainants.

That the OP No.2 (Bank of India, Purulia Branch) is directed to pay Rs.1,43,425/- only towards medical expenses as incurred by the complainants for treatment of Amit Chandra, sinc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document