AVINASH BANSAL Vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2011, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.

(2.) THE facts of the complaint, in brief, are that the complainant applied for loan of Rs.19,50,000 from State Bank of Patiala (Opposite party No. 2) in January, 2010 together with Life Insurance Policy by paying extra premium of Rs. 27,841. He was sanctioned loan of Rs.19,77,841 on 14.1.2010, but the opposite parties did not issue insurance policy to him. Rather opposite party No.2, vide Annexure C -8, charged excess amount of Rs. 5,443. He made several efforts to resolve the issue, but without any result. Ultimately, he served a legalnotice dated 18.9.2010, upon the opposite parties, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1, in its written reply, stated thatitneither received anyproposal form/membership form, for insurance cover, nor any premium amount from the complainant. It was stated that the insurer could not grant an insurance cover without advance payment of premium and proposal form. It was further stated that the complainant was intimated to submit the membership form and the details of remittance of premium for further process, but he did not submit the same, due to which, the question of issuance of insurance cover could not be considered and, thus, the negligence was on the part of the complainant. It was denied that Rs. 5,443 were charged from the complainant. It was, however, stated that the said debit shown was to be explained by opposite party No. 2. the remaining averments were denied, being wrong.