Date of filing:- 15/04/2019.

Date of Order:-27/05/2024.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B A R G A R H (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 17 of  2019.

            Smt. Shyama Choudhury, W/o late Subash Chandra Choudhury, Age 50(fifty) years, R/o. Attabira, Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.           .....       ....     .....           Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

1. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd, Janhapada Branch, At/Po. Janhapada, Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
2. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Chhabra Complex, Budharaja Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur, 768004.

            .....       .....       .....            Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-            Sri S.B.Mishra, Advocate with associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one):-     Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two):-     Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate with associates.

                                                            -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra               .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agrawal             .....            .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.27/05/2024.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-   

1)         The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the aunt of the deceased Amit Kumar Choudhury who was a consumer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) bearing Account No. 915010010848584 and the Opposite Party No.1(one) has issued one Titanum Debit Card bearing No. 5327 3101 0138 3188. The aforesaid card was insured by Opposite Party No.2(two). Amit Kumar Choudhury died on Dt.15-09-2016 for which the Complainant as a nominee approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) for death claim. The Opposite Party No.1(one) received documents from Complainant and assured the Complainant for early processing. The Complainant waited for a long time and finding no way placed his grievance before the Office of the Banking Ombudsman, Bhubaneswar, through his nephew on Dt.23-02-2018. The Complainant again placed her claim before Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt. 19-05-2018, the Opposite Party No.1(one) on 11^th September 2018 intimated the Complainant that her claim was rejected by Opposite Party No.2(two) for non-submission of relevant documents. The Complainant suffered a lot and filed complaint against the Opposite Parties for deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice before this Commission praying that Opposite Parties be directed to pay ₹3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only towards the insurance money and ₹1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards compensation and ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses.

2)         The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party Bank is not in the business of Insurance. Bank's role is only as a facilitator/referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two). It is admitted fact that Amit Kumar Choudhury was customer of the Opposite Party No.1(one) having Saving Account No. 915010010848584 and also issued with Visa Titanum Debit Card No. 5327310101383188 having accidental insurance benefit but it is denied that the insurance benefit gives coverage to the amount of ₹3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only. The Complainant never assured for early payment, as well complaint has ever submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim. The Opposite Party No.1(one) intimated the Complainant to make contact with Opposite Party No.2(two) for settlement of claim. It is not the Opposite Party No.1(one) but the Opposite Party No.2(two) to decide the claim, there is no deficiency in service in the part of Opposite Party No.1(one), the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one). 

3)         The case of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party No.2(two) has filed its version and submitted that the New India Assurance Company Limited, Mumbai has issued one personal Accident Package Policy bearing No. 11270046161- 300000003 to the Axis Bank Ltd covering Debit Card Holders of Axis Bank towards personal accident and loss card liability subject to certain conditions and limitation. The claim of Complainant was intimated vide Claim No. 99000046191390001437 but without any documents to support the claim, accordingly the claim was rejected for non submission of documents. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party is not aware that the Complainant is the nominee under the Debit Card. Accordingly there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2(two), the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.2(two).

4)         Perused the documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Whether the Complainant is the nominee and Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?         

Issue No.1(one)

5)         It is an admitted fact that the late Amit Kumar Choudhury has a personal Accident  Policy No.  11270046161300000003 issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) and the said Policy is linked to Axis Bank Debit Card holders. The Amit Kumar Choudhury died on
Dt.15-09-2016 for which death claim was lodged for availing death claim benefit by the Complainant. The pass book filed by the Complainant reflects the name of the Complainant in the nomination name, accordingly the Complainant is a nominee as well as consumer of the Opposite Parties and can avail the death benefits.

6)         When the policy is admitted, death of Amit Kumar Choudhury is admitted, the Opposite Party No.2(two) repudiate the claim due to non submission of claim documents as per SLA. The Complainant has filed documents addressed to the Opposite Party No.1(one) having endorsement of the documents and as the aforesaid Debit Card is insured with the Opposite Party No.2(two), it is the duty of Opposite Party No.2(two) to settle the claim.

            Non-settlement of claim during the valid period of insurance amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2(two).

            For the negligence of Opposite Party No.2(two), Opposite Party No.1(one) can not be liable.

            The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2(two)

7)         For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant entitled to get relief. The issued answered accordingly.

             As per supra discussion the following order is passed.

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

8)         The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.2(two) and dismissed against Opposite Party No.1(one). The Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to settle death claim and pay insured amount ₹3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only to the Complainant along with ₹30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only for deficiency in service and ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses within one month of this Order. Failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.

9)         Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e.  Dt.27/05/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.2(two) and disposed off.

                                                                                             Typed to my dictation

                                                                                              and corrected by me.

                                    I agree,                                               ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)

                                                                                                     M e m b e r(w).

                       (Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)

                              P r e s i d e n t.