Kerala Consumer Forum Slams Bank for Unfair Trade Practice of Deducting Premium without Providing Insurance

Kerala Consumer Forum Slams Bank for Unfair Trade Practice of Deducting Premium without Providing Insurance

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ernakulam has ruled that Canara Bank must compensate a customer for not furnishing insurance coverage and the corresponding certificate, despite having deducted the premium for the insurance.

The Bench, consisting of President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., observed that the actions of the opposite party, namely, their assurance of providing insurance coverage and a certificate, along with their subsequent failure to fulfil this promise despite deducting the premium, indicated a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. This deficiency in service resulted in the complainant's inability to claim cashless benefits for medical expenses incurred, causing significant hardship and emotional distress.

The complainant averred that the Bank deducted a premium from his account for an insurance arrangement with Tata AIG, promising an insurance certificate for the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. However, he asserted that the bank repeatedly failed to provide the policy or insurance certificate despite multiple requests. The complainant said that when he underwent medical treatment incurring expenses of ₹90,000, he was unable to claim from the insurance due to the missing policy details.

The Bank was set ex-parte by the Commission on account of its "conscious failure" to submit its version. Rather, the Commission regarded such omission as an "admission of the allegations" against them.

The Commission went on to observe that the Bank's consistent failure to respond and address the complainant's grievances indicated their negligence and non-compliance with their commitment, which also amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.

The Commission determined that, after considering the evidence, the unopposed claims of the complainant, and the significant deficiency in service attributed to the opposing party, it is clear that the opposing party is accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and providing deficient services. Consequently, the complainant has endured substantial inconvenience, emotional distress, adversity, and financial losses as a result of this situation.

The opposite party bank's consistent failure to fulfil its assurances, address grievances, and comply with commitments demonstrates a glaring lack of transparency, responsibility, and a disregard for the consumer's rights and well-being, thereby constituting a clear affront to the principles of fair and ethical business practices. In conclusion, the complaint is deemed maintainable, and the opposite party is found to have engaged in unfair trade practices and deficient services," the Commission ruled.

As a result, the Commission issued a directive to the Bank, instructing it to reimburse the complainant with the following amounts: ₹90,000 for the medical expenses incurred, ₹50,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service, as well as the mental distress and physical hardship experienced by the complainant, and ₹10,000 to cover the costs associated with the legal proceedings.

The complainant was represented by Advocate T.J. Lakhmanan.