BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.289 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.178 OF 2008 DISTRICT FORUM KARIMNAGAR

Between:

The Branch Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Karimnagar Branch, Post Karimnagar
(amended as per the orders in I.A.No.54/2009
dt.8.4.2009)

1.  Vennampally Rajaih S/o Kotaiah
age 52 years Occ: Sub-Inspector (A.R.)
R/o H.No.3-6-294, Subhasnagar,
Karimnagar Proper and Town-002
                                                 2.  The Branch Manager, UTI Bank
(Presently known as Axis Bank)
Business Tower, Mukarampuram
Karimnagar-002 A.P.Proper and town
                                                 

Counsel for the Appellant                     

Counsel for the Respondents                

QUORUM:  

                       SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY 

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.     

2.              `5 lakh and the complainant is the nominee for the sum insured.    

3.               

4.             

5.              

6.             `5,000/- for metro and urban branches and`2,500/- for semi-urban and rural branches and    

7.             

8.             

9.            `2,500/- during the last two quarters preceding the date of his death and that the District Forum erred in holding that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were not intimated to the card holder despite the Debit Card Usage Guide providing for POS and minimum balance in the account of the card holder.

10.   

11.           

12.      

13.   

14.   

15.

16.   

17.           

“Opposite party no.1 failed to place on record any evidence in proof of having informed the Debit Card Holder of the conditions underlying the said scheme. Opposite party no.1 even failed to inform the deceased Debit Card Holder of the change of the name of the bank as AXIS Bank and about the conditions incorporated under the changed agreement between the AXIS Bank and opposite party no.2 which amounts to deficiency in service. The ground taken by opposite party no.1 for repudiation of complainant’s claim that the Debit Card Holder did not fulfill the condition precedent i.e. utilization of the Debit Card at any merchant outlet during his life time does not hold water as it was not communicated to the said Debit Card Holder at the time of issuance of Debit Card and also for lack of mandatory provision in Ex.B5. Any condition un-intimated in writing would be invalid and not applicable”.

18.           

19.   

20.           

21.              

22.           

23.                

24.    In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum.The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 

                                                                                                                                      KMK*