DCRDC holds Oriental Bank Of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Co liable for deficiency in service
DCRDC holds Oriental Bank Of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Co liable for deficiency in service
Rules that the delay in remitting the premium is not the responsibility of the consumer
The Kolkata Unit-III bench of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has held Oriental Bank of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service. The two falsely repudiated a valid insurance claim, based on delay in remitting the premiums.
The bench comprising Sudip Niyogi (President) and Monihar Begum (Member) directed them to disburse Rs.66,790 to the complainant along with Rs.30,000 as compensation and litigation costs incurred by him.
A couple, Niva Dey and Sourindra Mohan Dey (complainants) had a Savings Bank account with Oriental Bank.
They secured a Mediclaim Insurance Policy from the Oriental Insurance Company, paying a premium of Rs.6,991, encashed by the bank. The policy provided a coverage of Rs.5 lakh to them.
Later, the complainants met with a road accident, resulting in severe injuries to Sourindra, who incurred medical expenses of Rs.66,789.50 for his treatment.
However, despite numerous requests, the bank did not provide policy documents to the complainant and did not cooperate in securing the reimbursement.
Thereafter, the complainants approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Government of West Bengal but were dissatisfied with the resolution.
Subsequently, they filed a consumer complaint against the bank and the insurance company before the DCDRC.
The bank contended that the complaint was not maintainable, asserting that there was a delay on the part of the bank in sending the premium amount to the insurance company due to holidays.
On the other hand, the insurance company argued that the Mediclaim policy issued in favor of the complainants was valid from 20.12.2016 to 19.12.2017. Hence, they were not entitled to relief, as the accident which occurred on 13.12.2016 was outside the policy coverage period. The insurance company prayed for the claim’s dismissal.
The DCDRC observed that the premium for the insurance policy was deducted from the account of the complainants on 9.12.2016. However, a discrepancy arose as the insurance company claimed the policy did not align with the date of premium deduction.
The bank submitted that there was a delay in sending the proposal form and demand draft to the insurance company due to holidays.
However, the Commission held that the bank’s explanation was not valid and suggested its lackadaisical approach to the matter. More so because the bank had promptly deducted the premium from the account of the complainants.
The bench held that the bank acted on behalf of the insurance company as per their contractual relationship. The delay in remitting the premium should not burden the complainant. Thus, the insurance company and the bank were liable for deficiency in services.
