BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA No. 1252 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C. No.45 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- NIZAMABAD
Between :
Smt. N.Sujatha W/o. N.Narender Reddy,
Aged 43 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o.H.No.11-1-243, Kanetshwar,
Nizamabad. ….Appellant /Complainant
AND :
The Managing Director,
Health Administration Team,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Ground Floor, Ashoka Plaza,
32/2, Nagar Road, Next to weik field company,
PUNE (MS) – 400014.
The Manager,
Axis bank branch,
Nizamabad, Hyderabad road,
Nizamabad Road, Nizamabad. …Respondents/ Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant /Complainant : M/s. T.L.K.Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents/ opposite parties : Sri N.Mohan Krishna – R1
M/s. Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta – R2
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
,
Wednesday, the First day of February
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
***
The Appellant herein is the complainant and the Respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.no.45/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum– Nizamabad (for short, “the District Forum”).
2. The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 on the grounds, in brief, that one late Sri N.Prasanth Reddy [son of the complainant] had a savings account with the ATM Debit Card facility with the Opposite Party no.2 bank. By virtue of tie up with the account holder of the said bank, the Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company issued Insurance Policy to the said N.Prasanth Reddy for a period of one year from 11.04.2008 to 10.04.2009 covering accidental death benefit of Rs.5,00,000/- subject to terms and conditions. Unfortunately, he died on 17.07.2008 in a road accident. When the complainant, being a legal heir, lodged the claim, it was repudiated on 02.03.2009 by the Opposite Party no.1 Company on the ground that the average quarterly balance, of Rs.5,000/- for metro branches and Rs.2,500/- for other branches, was not maintained in the account of the deceased on the card so also at least one point of sale transaction (POS) was done on the said card in the financial year, as per the terms and conditions of the policy and that as such it could not be activated. This act of repudiation was challenged by the complainant in the complaint, before the District Forum.
3. The Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company did not dispute the facts stated above. It’s only defence is that as the terms and conditions, noted above, were not complied with by the deceased - policy holder, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and that as such there was no deficiency in service.
- The Opposite Party no.2 bank, being only a formal party, has filed the written version in the case stating that it acted only as a facilitator for the Insurance Policy and that the dispute is mainly between the complainant and the Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company.
- After due enquiry into the matter, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order on 29.10.2013 which is challenged by the complainant by way of the present appeal.
- The only contention of the Appellant / Complainant in the appeal is that the District Forum did not consider the aspect that both the Respondents/Opposite Parties did not intimate her son [the deceased account holder] about the terms and conditions of the policy but simply obtained his signatures on the proposal form and created the ground only with an intention to avoid the liability and that the Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company failed to inform him about non activation of the policy so also the Opposite Party no.2 bank also never communicated about the actual balance in his account and that as such the impugned order is erroneous and illegal and accordingly liable to be set aside.
- Perused the material evidence placed on record, the impugned order and the written arguments of the Appellant. The Respondents did not choose to file written arguments. Heard both the learned counsel.
8. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned order is erroneous both on facts and under law and that as such liable to be set aside?
- Point :- There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspect of the matter. The only dispute is with regard to the legality on the part of the Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the Appellant for the sum assured under the policy, Ex.B1. As per this document the Insurance coverage of Rs.5,00,000/-was covered for the Accidental Bodily Injury causing the insured’s death within 12 months of the policy period and that the policy was be activated only on his operation of the Debit Card atleast once during the financial year at any Merchant Establishment and also he had to maintain minimum average quarterly balance, of Rs.5,000/- for Metro and Urban branches and of Rs.2,500/- for Semi Urban and Rural branches. These conditions are evident from the “Debit Card Key to Usage” of the Opposite Party no.2 bank. The complainant did not dispute about the said terms and conditions but simply alleged that they were not explained to her son and that his signatures were blindly obtained on the proposal form. But this contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the deceased policy holder must have been an educated person when he was holding his own Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party no.2 bank. Ex.B2 is a copy of Statement of Account of the said bank with regard to the account of the insured. It is to be noted that, the policy was for a period of one year from 11.04.2008 to 10.04.2009. In the said Statement of Account the outstanding balance, for the said period, was never maintained to the limit of Rs.2,500/-by the deceased. The complainant also did not adduce any evidence to show that the insured had used debit card at any Merchant Establishment at least once, during the said period, to activate the policy coverage. Thus, both the conditions were violated and that as such, in our considered view, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party no.1 - Insurance Company in repudiating the claim in question, of the complainant. The learned District Forum has rightly appreciated this aspect by considering the entire material evidence placed on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. In this view of the matter we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
10. The point is answered accordingly against the Appellant/Complainant.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the impugned order but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 01.02.2017
