Haryana

Sonipat

256/2013

NEHA W/O NAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. AXIS BANK LTD.,2. DY. MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. RANGA

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                

                                Complaint No.256 of 2013

                                Instituted on:02/27.5.2013

                                Date of order:26.08.2015

 

Neha wd/o late Naveen Kumar, r/o H.No.49, Nandwani Nagar, Kirti Kunj, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                     VERSUS

 

1.Manager, Axix Bank Ltd. Sonepat Branch, Sonepat.

2.Dy.Manager, New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Claim-Hub, Mumbai Regional office-1, 12^th Floor, New India Centre, 17/A Coorporage road, Mumbai-400039 through Branch Manager New India Ass. Co. Ltd. near Civil Hospital, Delhi road Sonepat.

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. AK Ranga, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SC Jain, Adv. for respondent no.1.

          Sh. ML Sehgal, Adv.for respondent no.2.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, President.

           Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

           D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her husband Naveen Kumar had purchased a platinum card from respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 has provided a life insurance policy to the card holder.  Under this policy, if any kind of incident or death with the card holder occurred, the respondents will pay  the insurance amount to the legal heirs. Unfortunately the said Naveen Kumar had expired on 25.2.2012.  The complainant sent all the necessary documents to the respondents, but no satisfactory reply was received by the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 have appeared and they filed their separately written statement.

          The respondent no.1 in their written statement has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the debit/credit card, account rules, no such liability can be fixed on the banks in case of any such non-payment by the insurance company.    The respondent no.1 has no objection in getting claim of death of Naveen Kumar from respondent no.2.

          The respondent no.2 in their written statement has submitted that the husband of the complainant had expired on 25.2.2012, whereas the claim was submitted and received by the respondent no.2 on 2.11.2012 i.e. after a delay of 250 days and that amounts to violation of the terms and conditions on the part of the complainant.  The complainant has not informed the respondent no.2 well in time regarding the death of Naveen Kumar.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

3.        We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the husband of the complainant had expired on 25.2.2012, whereas the claim was submitted and received by the respondent no.2 on 2.11.2012 i.e. after a delay of 250 days and that amounts to violation of the terms and conditions on the part of the complainant.  The complainant has not informed the respondent no.2 well in time regarding the death of Naveen Kumar.  So, it cannot be said that there is any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has placed on record three documents i.e. JN-A to JN-C to prove that the claim of Rs.5 lacs has been made through ECS to the insured Axis bank and the amount has been credited.

          Similarly ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that the amount of Rs.5 lacs has been credited in the complainant’s account.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for any other relief or not?

          In our view, the complainant is not entitled for any other relief because despite the fact that there is a delay of 250 days on the part of the complainant in submitting the claim with the respondent no.2 insurance company, the claim of Rs.5 lacs has been credited in the complainant’s account by the respondent no.2.  Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2, despite this, the insurance company has redressed the grievances of the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint.  Thus, it is held that the complainant is not entitled for any other relief from the respondents and thus, with these observations and findings, we hereby dispose off the present complaint.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 26.08.2015