DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 162 of 3.5.2017

                                      Decided on: 17.8.2021

Veena Singla aged about 63 years widow of late Sh.Prag Raj Singla, r/o # 786, Hira Mahal, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Allahabad Bank, Branch Zirakpur, District Mohali, through its Branch Manager.
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company, Regd. Office EL-94 TTC, MIDC Mahape, Navi Mumbai (400701).

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Mahesh Puri, counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Manjit Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.Amit Gupta, counsel for OP No.2                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Veena Singla (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Allahabad Bank and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant namely Prag Raj Singla (now deceased) was maintaining his bank account No.50183745907 with OP No.1  and OP No.1 issued Visa Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM Card to the account holder Sh. Prag Raj Singla and also informed that the holder of the aforesaid card shall be covered under the free Personal Accidence Insurance benefit scheme of OP No.1 to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-.It is also informed that the said scheme was to be commenced from the date of issuance of debit card with no expiry date or period, regarding which annual maintenance charges were also deposited.
3. It is averred that the husband of the complainant met  with road side accident on 14.11.2015  and after that he remained admitted for treatment in Amar Hospital, Patiala, Fortis Hospital, Mohali, PGI Chandigarh, Aggarwal Nursing Home, Samana and ultimately he died on 11.2.2017. It is averred that with regard to the accident FIR was also registered with Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. It is further averred that after the death of the husband of the complainant she filed an application with OP No.1 for providing personal accident insurance claim of Rs.5,00,000/-against the Platinum debit card issued to her husband but OP No.1 did not pay any heed. There is thus unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which caused mental agony, tension and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OP to pay the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/-as costs of the complaint.
4. Initially notice of the complaint was given to OP No.1 who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. Thereafter , the ld. counsel for the complainant has moved an application for impleading Universal Sompo GIC as OP No.2 against which the ld. counsel for OP No.1 plead no objection. Hence the application was allowed and notice was ordered to be issued to OP No.2, who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
5. In the written reply the OP No.1 has raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as per the policy, as the age of deceased Prag Raj Singla was more than 73 years at the time of his death whereas the claim is maintainable only upto the age of 65 years.
6. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the husband of the complainant was maintaining bank account number in question with the OP and the OP had issued Visa Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM card to Sh.Praj Raj Singla. It is submitted that at the time of issuing of Visa Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM card if, the person is less than the age of 65 years then he is entitled to take benefit of personal insurance policy to the tune of Rs.5lakh but when the age of the person is above 65 years then he is not entitled to take benefit of insurance policy. It is further averred that the annual maintenance charges are relating to ATM card and not with regard to the Personal Accidental Insurance Benefit. It is further submitted that the complainant filed a claim with the OP on 8.6.2017 having claimed amount of Rs.5lakh  under the Visa Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM card but she is not entitled for the same as her husband had opened the account on 20.12.2013 i.e. at the age of 71 years as such the death of her husband  is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and was rejected by OP No.2 on 30.6.2017 and the this complaint was filed on 3.5.2017 before the rejection of the claim, which is premature. It is further averred that the claim if any, has to be paid by the insurance company. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying all other averments, the OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the written reply, OP No.2 has also raised preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is averred that the OP No.1 got its Gold Policy No.3333/53259993/04 valid from 8.6.2017 to 7.6.2018 for Rs.2 lakh for Gold Card Members/Account Holder and Rs.5lakh for Platinum Card Holders subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further averred that the complainant intimated OP No.1 with regard to death of Prag Raj Singla on 11.2.2017, the holder of Platinum International Card of OP No.1 and claimed Rs.5 Lakh and on perusal of the documents, the claim of the complainant was found not tenable under the policy as husband of the complainant met with an accident on 14.11.2015 and  died on 11.2.2017 i.e. death after 14 months from the date of accident. Thus under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 30.6.2017.
8. On merits, the OP has reiterated the facts as raised in the preliminary, therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments, the OP No.2 has also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C16 and closed the evidence.
10. On behalf of OP No.1 Sh.Deep Kumar, Sr.Manager,Allahabad Bank, Zirakpur branch alongwith his counsel has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.OPA alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
11. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Piyush Shankar alongwith document Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
13. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the husband of the complainant namely Prag Raj Singla was maintaining his bank account No.50183745907 with OP No.1 and OP No.1 issued Visa Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM card to the holder. The ld. counsel further argued that the husband of the complainant was told that the holder the said card shall be covered under the free Personal Accident Insurance Benefit scheme of Rs.5Lakh.The ld. counsel further argued that husband of the complainant met with an accident on 14.11.2015 and after prolonged illness he died on 11.2.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that after that the complainant being the wife of Prag Raj Singla and beneficiary approached the OPs for the claim of Rs.5 Lakh but they failed to provide the amount of Rs.5 Lakh. So the complaint be allowed.
14. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that the age of deceased Prag Raj Singla was more than 73 years at that time, so he was not eligible for any benefit. So the complaint be dismissed.
15. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the claim filed by the complainant which was found not tenable as her husband met with an accident on 14.11.2015 and died on 11.2.2017.The ld. counsel has also relied upon the citations Meena Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Revision Petition No.3763 of 2008, decided on 22.3.2012 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
16. To prove this case, the complainant has tendered her affidavit,Ex.CA and she has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the account statement, Ex.C2 is the document of Allahabad Bank,Ex.C3 is the International Debit card,Ex.C4 is document of Allahabad bank, which shows that a person who takes this Visa Gold & Platinum International Debit Cum-ATM card is entitled to insurance cover of Rs. 5Lakh.Ex.C5 is FIR dated 14.11.2015 of P.S.Kotwali, Nabha, Ex.C6 is death certificate of Prag Raj Singla, Ex.C7 is report under Section 173 CRPC, Ex.C8 is record of Amar Hospital,Ex.C9 is also record  of hospital, Ex.C10 is also record of hospital,Ex.C11 is bill of Fortis Hospital.
17. The legal heirs of Prag Raj Singla has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala which was allowed on 13.8.2019 and an amount of Rs.26,89,719/-was granted to the complainants. The matter went to Hon’ble High Court as an application was filed by the complainant and same was compromised for Rs.7Lakh.There is document on the file of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company  regarding agreement with Allahabad Bank. So from the documents on the file it is clear that Prag Raj Singla  had died on 11.2.2017 due to accident falls on 14.11.2015 after prolonged illness. After that challan C7 was filed against Ranjit Singh.So from the medical record on the file it is proved that Prag Raj Singla had died due to accident after prolonged illness. As such OP No.2 has wrongly denied the insurance claim and are liable to pay the same.
18. So due to our above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OP No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5Lakh to the legal heirs of Prag Raj Singla (since deceased) in equal shares alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of death of Prag Raj Singla till realization. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.11000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/-as costs of litigation.

Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:17.8.2021       

                                                 Y.S.Matta              Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                    Member                    President