BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.477 of 2023
Date of Instt. 04.12.2023
Date of Decision: 25.09.2024
Smt. Hem Lata, aged about 45 years, wife of late Sh. Jaipal Singh, son of Dharman Singh, resident of House No.167-A, New Vivek Vihar, Nandanpur Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its General Manager/Manager/Authorized Person, Claims Review Committee, 5th Floor, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411006.
2. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person, EH-197, Office No.27-28, First Floor City Square, near Kesar Petrol Pump, Jalandhar.
3. IIFL Home Finance Limited, SCO-96, Rajinder Nagar, near Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
4. IIFL Home Finance Limited, Corporate Office at Plot No.98, Udyog Vihar Phase-IV, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
Sh. Amrinder S. Thind, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.3 & 4.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that Sh. Jaipal Singh, husband of the complainant Smt. Hem Lata, had raised home loan from OP No.3 vide loan account No.IL-10142284 for Rs.20,28,519/-. All the relevant documents, including Sale Deed document No.2021-22/187/1/1770 dated 07.06.2021, were duly deposited by Sh. Jaipal Singh at the time of raising the loan facility with the Bank and the OPs No.3 & 4 duly sanctioned the loan on 20.05.2021 to late Sh. Jaipal Singh. As per the Account statement loan amount was disbursed on 25.05.2021. Thereafter, on the information and assurance of the OPs No.3 & 4, Sh. Jaipal Singh purchased the Insurance Policy for the sum of Rs.18,91,000/- from the OPs No.1 & 2 against the said loan facility. The OPs No.3 & 4 played an intermediary role between Jaipal Singh and insurance company, OPs No.1 & 2 stating that in case of any mis-happening/demise occurred to the borrower, then the insurance company will be liable to pay the loan amount to the Bank and his legal heirs will not be burdened/liability for the same. Having been convinced and allured by the insurance company and the Bank officials/OPs No.1 to 4, Sh. Jaipal Singh taken the insurance Policy under Master Policy No.0346254414, Membership No.0458651222. The Policy started from 25.05.2021 and the same is to be matured on 05/25/2029 12:00:00 AM and the OPs No.1 & 2 had received the entire premium amount of Rs.1,37,520/- including of GST from the husband of the complainant and the OPs No.1 & 2 issued the Certificate of Insurance including the information with regard to receipt of premium and the record of the OPs No.3 & 4 also supported the said fact. All of a sudden, while Sh. Jaipal Singh was admitted in Sacred Heart Hospital, Maqsudan, Jalandhar on 10.04.2023 and, Sh. Jaipal Singh expired on 11.04.2023 due to Cardio Pulmonary Arrest. After the demise of Sh. Jaipal Singh, the officials of the OPs No.3 & 4 are demanding the installments of the housing loan amount. Then the Bank officials were also apprised about the death of Sh. Jaipal Singh, but the Bank officials threatened the complainant and her family members to dispossess them from their house/property and to put the house to auction for recovery of the outstanding amount. Then the complainant approached to the OPs No.1 & 2 for payment of the loan as per the insurance policy as the loan amount was insured. The officials of the OPs No.1 & 2 directed the complainants to furnish the required documents i.e. death certificate and report of doctor, which the complainants duly provided them, but instead of making payment of outstanding amount as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the officials of the OPs No.1 & 2 flatly refused/denied to pay the outstanding loan amount vide letter dated 23.08.2023 on the false and baseless grounds, which is totally illegal, wrong and against the principles of natural justice. The complainant again moved an application to the OP No.1 with a request to reopen the rejected claim of the complainant, which is still pending with the OP No.1. Due to the denial of OPs No.1 & 2 to pay the outstanding amount, the complainant Hem Lata, who is old aged widow lady, suffered from mental agony and physical harassment. The complainant sent several representations through email to the OPs No.1 and 2, but all in vain and also served a legal notice dated 08.11.2023, but to no use and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs No.1 and 2 be directed to pay the loan amount of Rs.18,91,000/- with interest outstanding to the OPs No.3 & 4 as per the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy and OPs No.3 & 4 are required to restrained from passing any adverse order like attachment or auction of property/house of the Complainant till the matter is settled by the OPs No.1 and 2. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false and vexatious, and the same has been filed with the sole intention to mislead this Court and to conceal the default committed by the complainant who himself is a wrongdoer. The suit filed by the complainant is not maintainable be it by equity or by law. It is further averred that the complainant cannot wriggle out the same on the basis of false allegations when the complainant is himself at fault. It is further averred that without prejudice, complainant in the present complaint despite the concealing the fact as stated above was given a chance to write to claim review committee of OPs No.1 and 2 in case complainant was not satisfied with the decision. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the insurance policy for the sum of Rs.18,91,000/- against the loan facility, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OPs No.3 & 4 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has not come before this Court with clean hands and has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before this Court. The complainant has attempted to mislead the Court. In fact, the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Court and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the OPs No.3 & 4. The complaint under reply is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, as also from the facts stated in the written statement, it would be evident that the matter involves intricate, complex and or complicated questions of law and fact, which will require detailed or elaborate trial and involve leading of voluminous evidence, which is possible only in regular proceedings before a Civil Court and cannot be effectively, properly or judiciously adjudicated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act before this Court. On merits, the factum with regard to avail the home loan for Rs.20,28,519/- with the tenure of 14 years by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is not disputed that the husband of the complainant namely Jai Pal availed the home loan from the OPs No.3 & 4 for Rs.20,28,519/-. The loan was sanctioned on 20.05.2021 and the period for the loan was 14 years. The complainant has mortgaged his property. The sale deed and other documents were also filed. The sale deed has been proved as Ex.C-2, sanction letter, loan application has been proved as Ex.C-3/OP No.3/3 and Ex.OP3/2. The detail of loan certificate has been proved as Ex.C-5. It is also not disputed that the husband of the complainant Jai Pal Singh died on 11.04.2023 as per certificate Ex.C-8 and the discharge type expired has been proved as Ex.C-7. It is also not disputed that the due course of law has been adopted by the OPs No.3 and 4 for the recovery of the outstanding loan amount since the SRFAESI proceedings are pending therefore, as per the Section-34 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 the District Forum or the State Commission have no power to interfere with the SRFAESI Act and its proceeding.
8. This fact has been admitted by OPs No.1 and 2 that the complainant purchased the insurance policy for the sum of Rs.18,91,00/- from OPs No.1 and 2 against the loan facility. The complainant has alleged that the OPs No.3 and 4 played as intermediary role between Jai Pal Singh and insurance company, but this facts has not been proved. The complainant has proved on record the certificate of insurance Ex.C-6. The complainant submitted the policy claim of Sh. Jai Pal Singh alongwith the required documents, but her claim was rejected vide letter dated 23.08.2023 Ex.C-10. Her request for reopening the rejected claim was also denied. Perusal of Ex.C-10 shows that the claim has been rejected on the ground that Jai Pal Singh was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and despite having knowledge about the same, he chose to make a false and in accurate disclosure in the proposal form. Perusal of Ex.C-7 shows that the deceased Jaipal Singh had died because of sudden cardio pulmonary arrest. There is no mention of the fact in Ex.C-7 that the cause of the death of Jaipal Singh was diabetes nor any document has been proved on record by the OPs No.1 and 2 that because of diabetes, Jaipal Singh has died. There is no nexus between disease and cause of death. We are supported by the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in III (2021) CPJ 66 (NC), case titled as ‘PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Godavariben Kalubhai Vaghela’ that ‘Insured had suffered a heart attack and he died - Complainant being nominee, claimed amount under the policy, which was denied by the petitioner on ground that insured had concealed material fact at the time of buying policy- Insured was not suffering from any heart ailment when he filled up proposal form- only defence taken is that insured had underwent treatment for T. B. and this fact was concealed – insured had died after about six months of buying the policy – Concealment of fact regarding treatment of T. B., if any, cannot be termed as concealment of material fact – There is no nexus between concealment of alleged fact and cause of death.’ It has been held by the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in (2006) CPJ 270, case titled as ‘Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Shiv Singh’ that ‘insured got examined from insurance doctor, found healthy – Deceased allegedly suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic asthma – No nexus between cause of death and alleged ailment of deceased – Fraudulent suppression of material facts not proved- insurer liable.’
9. It is not disputed that the loan was obtained as per submission of the complainant’s husband. The complainant has paid the penalty and Rs.18,00,000/- is due to be paid to the OPs No.3 and 4 as per her submission. The terms and conditions alongwith certificate of insurance is Ex.C-6/OP No.1/5. A schedule has also been attached which is benefit schedule and the same is for a sum assured of Rs.18,91,000/- for which the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant’s husband. As per Ex.C-8 the complainant died on 11.04.2023 and as per schedule, he falls in the category at serial no.23 which shows that Rs.16,32,099/- is covered. So, as per schedule, the complainant is entitled for Rs.16,32,099/-. Thus, there is clear cut negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed qua OPs No.1 and 2 and dismissed against OP No.3 and 4 as the OPs No.3 and 4 cannot be restrained as the District Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the proceedings under Sarfaesi Act. The OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.16,32,099/- to complainant. Further, OPs No.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
25.09.2024 Member Member President
