BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH

Consumer Case No. 521/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
JITENDRA KUMAR …Complainant
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. …. Opposite Parties

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 I.E

INDIAFIRST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Opposite Party 2 & i.e., IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company
Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2) is a
Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 having its registered office at 12th & 13th Floor, North [C] wing,
Tower 4, Nesco IT Park, Nesco Center, Western Express Highway,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 and having one of its branch office at
Shop no 303-306, Third floor, Mohan Dev Building, Tolstoy Marg, Near
Vandana Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001. The said
IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company Limited is primarily into the business
of Life Insurance duly approved as per the Government of India through
the Insurance Regulator – Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India (IRDAI) and has branches across India and is widely
acclaimed for its reputation and services. This Respondent has carved a
niche for themselves in the insurance products as well as in the services
across the country.

2. At the outset, the Opposite Party No. 2 denies the averments and
contentions made by the Complainant in the complaint, except those,
which are expressly adverted to and admitted herein. The Opposite Party
No. 2 craves leave to refer to the correspondences exchanged with the
Applicant Mr. Jitendra Kumar and Co-Applicant Mrs. Kusum Shivhare
(hereinafter jointly referred as the “Complainants”), the Complainants
and the Opposite Party along with all letters and documents submitted by
the Complainant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS:

1. That the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide and
is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is an attempt to
waste the precious time of this Hon’ble Commission, as the same has been
filed by the Complainant just to avail undue advantage.

2. That the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed since

the Complainant does not have a locus standi pertaining to instant Case.
That the Opposite Party No. 2 have never sell any policy to the
Complainant and also not received any premium to cover Complainant’s.
The Complainant’s are also submitted the same in the instant complaint. In
the circumstances aforesaid, the Opposite Party No.2 is not under any
obligation, legal or otherwise to comply with the demands of the
Complainant as no cover was issued to them.

3. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 have never received premium as

required to issue the policy to alleged members and the same is also
submitted by the Complainant in the complaint that they have received
their premium amount back from the Opposite Party No. 1. Issuance of
policy without premium or consideration is violation of Section 64VB of
the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended from time to time. This section
requires an insurance company to provide insurance coverage or assume
risk on a life only after receipt of premium and not otherwise.

4. That the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for their
services and taken home loan but they never connected with Opposite
party No. 2. Further, as claimed by the Complainant the Opposite party
No. 1 has deducted the premium amount for insurance but the same was
never deposited with the Opposite Party No. 2 and no insurance was
issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. Hence this shows a
malafide intention of the Complainant to gain undue advantage from
Opposite Party No. 2.

5. That at the very outset it is submitted that the Opposite Party No. 2 never
received any premium amount to cover the Complainant’s from Bank of
Baroda (Opposite Party No. 1) to process the application of any insurance
plan. Since, the Opposite Party No. 2 have not receive any premium
 amount to process the application of the Complainant’s for any insurance
plan which is necessary and were required to process the proposal of
policy contract, therefore Opposite Party No. 2 did not issue any
insurance. It is pertinent to mention that the main dispute is between the
Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The Answering Opposite
Party/Opposite party No. 2 have no role into it.

6. That the above complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and
the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

7. Also The Hon’ble National Dispute redressal Commission in ICICI

PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. AMIT VIJAY
SALVI & ANR., (2019) (NC) “Section 64VB of the Insurance
Act, 1938 only cautions the Insurance Companies that they
will not cover any risk without receiving the premium. 

8. That it is most humbly submitted that the instant complaint lacks a cause
of action. The complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures. It is
an established principle of law that the machinery of law cannot be
invoked on the basis of mere conjectures. Therefore, this complaint is
liable to be dismissed on want of the cause of action.

9. That the Opposite Party No. 2 is under no liability for the non-submission
of premium amount by the Opposite Party No. 1 since there is no privity
of contract between the Proposed Life Assureds and the Opposite Party
No. 2.

10. That the terms of policy contract cannot be read as per convenience of the
Complainant. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed in General
Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandmull Jain [1966] 3 SCR 500, that:

In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the

duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is
expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a
new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it
themselves.

9. In Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 567] it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the words
in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and
 interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution.
Similarly, in Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 286, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed
as under:
The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the
nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely.

10. That without prejudice to above stated contentions, the Opposite Party
No. 2 submits the correct facts and details of the case, which are as
follows:

i. That after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy,
the Complainant had availed a loan facility from Bank of Baroda
(hereinafter referred to as “Opposite party No. 1”) and interested to
take policy from Opposite party No. 2 in order to secure the loan
amount, but the Opposite Party No. 2 have not received any
application and premium amount from the Complainant and Opposite
party No. 1 for the reasons best known to them.

It is pertinent to mention here that Opposite Party never received

any premium to cover Complainant’s as submitted by the
Complainants as well in the instant complaint that the Opposite
No. 1 has given back their premium amount deducted in the form
of FD and hence no question of issuing any policy/coverage in
their names arise. That the Opposite Party No. 2 has not issued any
cover in the name of Complainant’s hence there is no question of
claims payment.

ii. It is pertinent to mention here that Opposite Party No. 2 never

received any premium amount from the Complainant’s or Opposite
party No. 1. That in order to issue the membership under the policy, it
is mandatory to provide duly filled and signed membership form,
other details and complete premium for the Insurance Company to
assess the risk and accordingly decide whether to issue the cover or
not.

iii. Since the Complainant’s or Opposite Party No. 1 was never

approached the Opposite Party No. 2 hence the Opposite Party is not
aware about the transactions takes place between the Complainant
 and the Opposite Party No. 1. It is pertinent to mention that there is
no privity of contract between the Opposite party no. 2 and the
PLA’s.

iv. Since, the Opposite Party did not receive premium amount, the cover
was not issued to PLA’s. The Opposite Party No. 2 never issued a
Certificate of Insurance to cover the risk. Therefore, there is no
question of claiming any insurance policy from the Opposite Party
No. 2.

v. That in the circumstances aforesaid, Opposite Party is not under any

obligations, legal or otherwise to comply with the demands made in
the complaint as subject membership never came into force due to
non-payment of premiums.

Para wise Reply

1. That the content of Para 1 is partly admitted and partly denied

due to want of knowledge. It is submitted that the Opposite
party has never issued any policy to the Complainant because
the Opposite party has never received any application and
premium amount from the Complainant. Hence, the
Complainant is not the consumer of the Opposite party no. 2.
The Complainant must put the strict proof of the same.
2. That the content of Para 2 is a matter of record and not related
to Opposite party No. 2. Hence, needs no reply.
3. That the contents of Para 3 to 5 of the complaint is matter of
record and not related to Opposite Party No. 2. However, it
submitted that the Opposite Party has not received any
premium amount from the Complainant or Opposite Party No.
1. Hence denied due to want of knowledge and the
Complainant must out the strict proof of the same.
4. That the contents of Para 4 to 10 of the complaint do not merit
any comment from the answering Opposite Party No. 2 due to
want of knowledge. It submitted that the Opposite party No. 2
had already elaborated its stand regarding not receiving of any
premium amount or application for taking insurance policy
 from Opposite party no. 2 in above paras and not repeated
herein in the sake of brevity.
5. That the contents of last para being in nature of prayer are
vehemently denied. It is submitted that Prayer of the
complainant is vexatious, frivolous, and not maintainable,
hence is liable to be dismissed in limine.

PRAYER

In light of the facts and circumstance mentioned above, it is respectfully

submitted before this Hon’ble Commission that the Complainant has
failed to prove any cause of action or prima facie case in the Complaint
against the Answering Opposite Party and therefore, failed to set up any
case for any reliefs as such, hence the Complaint filed by the Complainant
may kindly be dismissed with costs

For and on behalf of Opposite Party

Place:

Date: ___/____/2022

VERIFICATION

I, Prashant Saini - DVP-Legal of the answering Opposite Party do hereby verify

that what is stated above are true, correct and as per my own knowledge as
ascertain from the records available in my office.
.
Verified at New Delhi this ______ day of ____________, 2022.

For and on behalf of Opposite Party

Through 

Mirza Aslam Beg, Praveen Pandey &_______________

Advocates for Opposite Party
King Stubb & Kasiva Advocates & Attorneys
Unit No. 14, Ground Floor, DLF Tower A,
Jasola, New Delhi-110025
aslam@ksandk.com, 9958418959,8882619082
Place:
Date: ____/ /2022
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GWALIOR, MADHYA PRADESH
Consumer Case No. 521/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
JITENDRA KUMAR …Complainant
VERSUS
BANK OF BARODA & ORS. …. Opposite Parties

AFFIDAVIT
I, Prashant Saini, DVP-Legal, of IndiaFirst Life Insurance Co. Ltd having its
registered office at 12th & 13th Floor, North [C] wing, Tower 4, Nesco IT Park,
Nesco Center, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063,
having one of the branches at Shop no 303-306, Third Floor, Mohan Dev
Building, Tolstoy Marg, Near Vandana Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi -
110001 do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under,

1 That I am the DVP-Legal of the Opposite Party IndiaFirst Life Insuarnce

and am conversant with the facts of this case as ascertained from the
records thereof in due course and am competent to swear to this affidavit.

2 That the contents of the accompanying Written Statement are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, derived from the records available in
the present case.

Deponent
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this ____day of __________, 2022 that the contents of
my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge as ascertain
from the records available in my office. No part of the same is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

Deponent