ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. PREM KISHAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of the same order of State Commission; hence, decided by a common order.

(2.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 32 of 2012 Prem Kishan Garg Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and complaint was allowed.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was an Account holder of Bank of Rajasthan. OP No. 1 & 2/petitioner launched a Group Medi-Claim Insurance Policy of Account holder of Rajasthan Bank. Complainant got medi-claim insurance policy on 7.4.2008 from OP to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- after payment of premium of Rs.7315/. Policy was renewed for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 after paying aforesaid premium amount. On 29.3.2011, complainant got letter from Insurance Co. whereby complainant was informed by OP No. 3/petitioner that Bank of Rajasthan had merged with OP No. 3 and complainant must send premium by demand draft to OP for continuation of policy. Complainant sent demand draft of Rs.7181/-, but Insurance Co. vide letter dated 8.4.2011 demanded Rs.26999/- from complainant for renewal of policy which was contrary to previous terms & conditions of the policy. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that there was no privity of contract between OP No. 1 & 2 and OP No. 3. It was further submitted that as insurance policy was issued to the complainant before date of merger of Bank of Rajasthan and ICICI Bank, OP No. 3 vide letter dated 29.8.2010 terminated agreement between OP and Bank of Rajasthan, so, policy could not be renewed and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP and complainant is not a consumer of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and State Commission directed jointly and severally to the OPs to renew medi-claim insurance policy every year till complainant attains age of 85 years after receiving premium of Rs.7181/- and further directed that in case policy is not issued they have to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and further awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings against which, these revision petitions have been filed.