STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Robin Noyal son of Sh. Noyal Masih, Resident of House No.1040/1, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh.

…. Appellant

V E R S U S

1.   Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at C-31 & C-32, First Floor, Connaught Circle, New Delhi – 110001.

2.   The Managing Director, Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited, having its Regd. Office at C-31 & C-32, First Floor, Connaught Circle, New Delhi – 110001.

3.   The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh (Branch Office Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited).

…… Respondents

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI    PRESIDENT

MRS. PADMA PANDEY            MEMBER

          MR. RAJESH K. ARYA           MEMBER

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2020 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh)(for short hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Ld. Lower Commission’), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing no. CC/61/2019, which reads as under:-

“8.  Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 

2.      Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was the case of the Appellant/Complainant that he purchased a Smart Future Plan from Respondents/Opposite Parties bearing Policy No.15000272047, which is one of the policies floated in the joint venture of the Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited. The premium of the said plan was Rs.50,000/- with a premium payment term of 10 years and the lock-in-period provided was 5 years. The Appellant/ Complainant was told that he has flexibility to change the payment mode from annually to monthly. Accordingly, the Appellant/Complainant made several requests to the Respondents/Opposite Parties to convert the premium plan of the Policy from annually to monthly as per para 2.2 of the Policy, but to no success. Eventually, the Appellant/Complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 upon the Respondents/Opposite Parties, but the same did not fructify. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondents/Opposite Parties.
3.      In the reply filed before the Ld. Lower Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Respondents/Opposite Parties pleaded that the Appellant/Complainant submitted a request with respect to Standing Instruction Mandate with the Bank and also requested to change the premium payment mode from yearly to monthly basis. Accordingly, vide letter dated 06.01.2017 the Appellant/Complainant was informed that as per the terms of the Policy Contract, the premium payment method pertaining to the Policy in question cannot be converted to monthly basis since the terms and conditions of the Policy clearly provide for the option of changing of premium payment mode only when the minimum premium is Rs.60,000/-. Thereafter, the Appellant/Complainant issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2017 to which the Respondents/Opposite Pa