Date of filing:05.02.2019
Date of Order:17.01.2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
HON’BLE Smt. CH. LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc. LLM.,PGD(ADR) MEMBER
ON THIS THE FRIDAY 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
C.C.No.119/2018
Between
- Smt. B,Malathi
W/o. Late Sri B Rama Rao,
Aged 39 years, Occ:Business,
R/o H.No.4-5-206 Annapurna Colony,
NTPC, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam,
Peddapally District, Telangana – 505 215. ……Complainant
- Sri Madhusudhan Rao,
S/o. Late Sri Narsing Rao,
Aged about 61 hears, Occ: Business,
R/o. H.No,.4-5-207, Annapurna Colony,
NTPC, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam,
Peddapally District, Telangana – 505 215.
And
- M/s. India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.,
Rep.by Authorized Officer,
Registered Office at 12A-10, 13th Floor
Parinee Crescenzo, C-38 & C-39,
C-Block, Behind MCA,
Bhandra Kurla Complex Bandra,
East Mumbai – 400 051.
- India Infoline Limited,
Rep.by Authorized Officer,
#5-9-22/B/501, 5th & 6th Floor
My Home Sarovar Plaza
Secretariat Road,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
- ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rep.by Authorized Officer,
ICICI Lombard House,414, Veer Sawarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabha Devi, Mumbai – 400 025
- ICICI Lombard Gic Ltd.,
Rep.by Authorized Officer,
ICICI Lombard Health Care,
ICICI Bank Towers,
Plot No.12, Financial District,
Nanakram Guda, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 032. ….Opposite Parties
ea
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.B.S.Prasad
Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 : Mr. C. Siddharth & Co.,
Counsel for the Opposite Parties 3 & 4 : Mr.S.Pramod Kumar
O R D E R
(By Sri. P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that failure to pay entire outstanding loan amount of the complainant with opposite parties No.1 and 2 financial institutions by opposite parties No.3 and 4 insurers under the insurance contract with the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties3 and 4.
2) Complainant’s case in brief is that:
The husband of the first complainant late B.Rama Rao approached opposite party No.1 company for a housing loan for purchase of a flat. While processing the loan opposite party No.1 made a proposal with late Rama Rao to take insurance policy known as Credit shield insurance policy as in the event of untimely death of the borrower the insurer will pay entire outstanding loan to the lender and the dependents of the deceased would not be burdened with repayment of the loan. Later B.Rama Rao was compelled to obtain the policy from opposite party No.3 and 4 by paying lump sum premium amount of Rs.44,152.79ps., and opposite party No.3 and 4 issued policy bearing No.4065/IIHFL/1010787227/00/000. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 have virtually cross sold the insurance policy to the complainant. After availment of the loan the borrower late B.Rama Rao purchased the flat and later he was admitted in M/s. Ravi Hospital, Kukatpally on 26.5.2016 and after investigations he was diagnosed as suffering with Acute Renel failure with elevated Lever Enzymes with Neutrophilia with esophageal candidacies with early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. He was discharged from the said hospital on 31.5.2016 , and was got admitted in M/s. Care Banjara hospital on the same day and underwent treatment till 16.6.2016 and for better treatment got discharged on 16.6.2016 and to have a lung transplant got admitted in Century hospital, Banjara hills and died on 18.6.2016.
Late B.Rama Rao regularly paid loan installments to opposite party No.1 and after his demise the first complainant intimated the same to opposite parties for processing the claim for discharge of the loan sanctioned by opposite party No.2 in terms of policy obtained from opposite party No.3 and 4 . Opposite parties 3 and 4 preferred to repudiate the claim without appreciating the of medical record of late B.Rama Rao. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 caused deficiency of service by not properly perusing insurance claim with opposite party No.3 and 4 and on the other hand they have issued demand notice u/s. 13(2) of SARFAFAESI Act, 2002. To avoid further proceedings by opposite party No1. and 2 the complainants paid outstanding amount without prejudice the rights to proceed against opposite party 3 and 4 for settlement of full claim. Complainants have got issued a legal notice on 25.3.2017 to the opposite parties asking to close the loan account. She received a reply with untenable grounds. Later opposite parties 3 and 4 settled the claim and paid Rs.26,12,591/-. Opposite party No.1 and 2 also called the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.13,000/- for return the original sale deed and collect the same on 27.6.2017. This amount is also liable to be refunded.
The complainant got issued a notice dt.14.6.2017 asking the opposite parties to reimburse the amount of Rs.2,37,859/- with interest at 18% p.a. and an amount of Rs.13,000/- forcibly collected from the complainant by opposite party No.1. Hence the present complaint for directing the opposite parties to reimburse the complainant a sum of Rs.2,37,859/- and Rs.13,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 25.4.2014 to the date of payment and to award costs of this complaint.
3) Opposite party No.1 and 2 filed common written version contending that the loan facility granted by them is generally secured additionally by way of Credit shield insurance policy which is optional on the part of the borrowers. Late B.Rama Rao was at liberty whether to opt the credit shield policy or not and he opted the policy offered by opposite parties 3 and 4. Loan sanctioned to late B.Rama Rao was Rs.27,00,000/- and said premium was Rs.44,152.79ps. was debited from the account of borrower and transferred to opposite party No.3 and 4. Opposite party No.1 and 2 are not the service providers of subject insurance policy and they have not received any fee from the complainant for such service. Opposite party No.1 and 2 are non-banking financial companies and are not involved in the business of Insurance policies. After the death of borrower late B.Rama Rao loan account held by him became delinquent and was classified as non performing asset. Hence notice was got issued under SARFESI Act, 2002 to the complainant as co-applicants to the loan facility availed by late B.Rama Rao. The subject policy was basically a credit shield policy and opposite party No.3 and 4 paid a sum of Rs.26,12,951/- to opposite party 1 and 2 for liquidation of the credit shield policy. After adjusting the said amount against outstanding dues from late B.Rama Rao an amount of Rs.2,50,859/- was still due which is payable by the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have extended loan facility to late B.Rama Rao and they have not offered any other service hence the question of disowning their responsibilities does not arise . Hence the complaint is not maintainable against opposite parties No.1 and 2.
Opposite parties 3 and 4 in their common written version stated that they have issued the subject policy containing terms and conditions to be followed by both the parties. In the subject policy sum assured was Rs.26,12,591/- paid it completely as a liability of opposite parties 3 and 4 after death of Rama Rao and they have not committed any act of deficiency of service. Since liability of opposite parties 3 and 4 under subject policy is only an amount of Rs.26,12,591/- they paid it through NIFT to the loan account of insured late B.Rama Rao with opposite party No.1 and 2 institutions and obtained a letter showing full and final settlement of the claim. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4.
4) In the enquiry the complainants 1 and 2 have got filed their evidence affidavit’s reiterating the material facts of the complaint. To support the same got exhibited 13 documents . For the opposite party 1 and 2 evidence affidavit of the Manager Sri Rama Bhadra Raju is got filed and substance of the same is in line with the stand taken in the written version. Similarly for opposite parties 3 and 4 evidence affidavit of legal manager is got filed and three documents are exhibited on their behalf.
5) On a consideration of material brought on the record the following points have emerged for determination:
- Whether the complainant can make out a case of either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: The undisputed facts are the husband of the first complainant late .Rama Rao availed a housing loan from opposite party No.1 and 2 which are non-banking financial institutions and to cover the loan amount insurance policy was purchased from opposite parties No.3 and 4 by paying one time premium of Rs.44,152.17ps. The borrower reported to have died on 18.6.2016 on account of some ailments. Since loan availed by the deceased B.Rama Rao was covered by subject policy issued by opposite parties No.3 and 4 claim was made for settlement of the same. Complainants have narrated details of ailments suffered by late B.Rama Rao and the treatment taken in various hospitals which are not being disputed by the opposite parties. Hence no enquiry is needed as to the nature of ailments suffered by the late Rama Rao before and purchase of the subject policy by him from opposite party No.3 & 4.
The claim of the complainants is opposite parties were informed of death of the borrower, hence the entire outstanding loan with opposite parties No.1 and 2 has to be settled by opposite parties No.3 and 4 as insurers. The outstanding loan as on the date of death of borrower late B Rama Rao was Rs.28,63,450/- and the stand of the complainants is the entire outstanding loan has to be settled by the insurers opposite party 3 and 4. But the perusal of Exhibit A1 policy shows the sum assured is only Rs.26,12,591/-. Nowhere it is stated in the policy , Exhibit A1 that the liability of the insurers is to the entire outstanding loan of the borrower late Rama Rao. Since sum insured is only Rs.26,12,591/- irrespective of outstanding due the liability of the insurers is only Rs.26,12,591/- Even according to complainants as well as opposite parties, the total insured amount of Rs.26,12,591/- was paid by opposite parties No.3 and 4 to opposite parties No.1 and 2 . Hence claim of the complainant that non-payment of balance outstanding amount of Rs.2,50,859/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.26,12,591/- by opposite party No.3 and 4 amounts to deficiency has no legs to stand. Similarly opposite party No.1 and 2 are entitled to recover the balance amount from the loan account of late B. Rama Rao and demanding to pay said amount and collecting of the same from the complainants as co-applicants of the loan does not amounts to either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service. Thus material brought on the record does not disclose either unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the opposite parties
7) Point No.2:- Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite
parties , the complainant is not entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint.
9) Point o.4:- In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno , transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on 20th day of January, 2020.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- Copy of Insurance policy
Ex.A2 - Copy of claim rejection letter
Ex.A3 - Legal notice dt. 25.3.2017
Ex.A4 – Copy of settlement email
Ex.A5- Copy of letter total outstanding
Ex.A6 - Original Demand notice
Ex.A7- Original rejoinder
Ex.A8 - Legal notice dt.14.6.2017
Ex.A9 to A13 - Bankers counter file
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – Repudiation letter dt. 29.9.2016
Ex.B2 – Poly Meul by ICICI dt. 2.6.2017
Ex.B3 – Letter give to opposite party 3 and 4 by the complainant.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
