PER:

Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainants have filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that  the husband of the complainant namely Sh.Rajinder Sharma has availed housing loan facility from the opposite party vide account No.630375110000034 for the sum of Rs.10,36,410/-. After availing the loan facility, the husband of the complainant used to make the payment of EMIS to the opposite party as per directions of the opposite party. Unfortunately the husband of the complainant expired on 11.08.2015. As such, complainant is consumer of the opposite party. At the time of availing housing loan, opposite party assured the husband of the complainant that in case during the period of housing loan facility, if the original loanee expired, then it is the responsibility of the Insurance company  to make the remaining outstanding loan amount to the opposite party. As per knowledge of complainant Insurance Co. has made payment of Rs.3,78,524/- to the opposite party which amount has been adjusted against the housing loan facility form the opposite party. Even otherwise it is the duty of the Insurance Co. to make the remaining amount of the loan. The complainant many times requested the opposite party to adjust the entire loan amount from the Insurance policy, but the opposite party has failed to resolve the grievances of the complainant.  When husband of complainant requested the opposite party No.1 for sanctioning the loan, then opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to get the loan secured from their Insurance Co. and  husband of complainant agreed to the proposal of opposite party No.2 regarding the Insurance against loan . Hence both the opposite parties have committed acts of deficiency in service. The complainant has prayed that

i)       The opposite party may kindly be directed to adjust remaining amount of loan from the Insurance Co.

(ii)     The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as damages and compensation to the complainant for causing mental harassment.

(iii)    The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay complete cost of the present litigation.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by interalia pleadings that the present complaint against the opposite party No.1 is legally not maintainable . There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 . As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.1. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The opposite party No.1 Bank of India is unnecessary arrayed as party to the present complaint. Sh.Rajinder Sharma son of Sh.Buta Ram ( husband of the complainant) has availed the housing loan of Rs.15,50,000/- on 14.12.2011. The housing loan account bearing No.630375110000034 has been opened in the name of Rajinder Sharma husband of complainant by the opposite party No.1 Bank of India. The amount of the installments deposited by Rajinder Sharma has been duly credited in the said loan account. The complainant has informed the opposite party No.1 Bank of India regarding the death of her husband on 11.08.2015. At the time of availing said Housing Loan facility from the opposite party No.1 Bank of India, the opposite party No.2 Star Union Dai- Inchi Life Insurance has insured the husband of the complainant. There is not privity of contract between the said borrower Rajinder Sharma and opposite party No.1 Bank of India with regard to the Insurance policy to the opposite party No.2. So, the same is not binding upon the rights of the opposite party No.1 Bank of India. As per record of the opposite party No.1 Bank of India and as per terms and conditions contained in the security documents executed by the said Rajinder Sharma, the said Rajinder Sharma is liable to repay the outstanding amount to the opposite party No.1 Bank of India and in case of his death, his legal heirs are liable to repay the outstanding amount along with upto date interest to the opposite party No.1 Bank of India in the aforesaid Housing Loan account of the deceased. An amount of Rs.3,78,524/- has been received by the opposite party No.1 Bank of India on 09.06.2016 in the aforesaid loan amount of Rajinder Sharma. As per record of the opposite party No.1 Bank of India and as per terms and conditions contained in the security documents executed by the said Rajinder Sharma, the said Sh.Rajinder Sharma is liable to repay the outstanding amount to the opposite party No. 1 Bank of India and in case of his death, his legal heirs are liable to repay the outstanding amount along with upto dated interest to the opposite  party NO.1 Bank of India in the aforesaid Housing Loan account of the deceased. There is no deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mal- practice on the part of the opposite party No.1 Bank of India. The opposite party  No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

4        The opposite party No. 2 has appeared through counsel and has filed written version by contesting the complaint that the complainant has failed to make out a case of Deficiency of Service against the opposite party No.2, as alleged or otherwise, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That the company has issued the policy as per the mandate and promptly settled the claim when it was filed. The insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which is beyond the terms of the Insurance Policy can be granted, hence no case for deficiency in service is made out of this case as there is no breach on the part of the company. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party No. 2 upon receipt of duly and signed Membership application Form dated 26.12.2011, from Rajinder Sharma ( hereinafter referred as “ Deceased Life Assured”) through opposite party No.1 ( Master Policy Holder) issued the certificate of Insurance in the name of Life Assured, details of which are hereunder:-

The opposite party No.2 receipt of death claim intimation had paid the death claim amount of Rs.3,78,524.27 Paise on 07.06.2016 in the complainant back account. That on payment of the Death Benefit, insurance cover provided under the Master Policy, for that member would automatically terminate and all liability of the Company in respect of that member would stand automatically extinguished. The opposite party has paid the said amount as per the amount specified in the some assured schedule. That the complainant cannot seek any further relief from the opposite party No.2. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of law. The answering respondents have paid the death claim amount. That the opposite party No.2 is not liable to make any further payments under the said policy. That there is no deficiency in service on part of the answering Respondent, hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. The policy is governed by the terms and conditions contained in the policy document. The deceased had availed the above said policy from the opposite party No. 2 and the same is governed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per the terms and conditions of the said policy the opposite party 2 is bound to pay the amount as specified in the sum assured schedule which is a part of the policy document.  The deceased i.e. Sh.Rajinder Sharma expired at 4 year 8 months availing the said insurance policy. The opposite party No.2 got the Death Claim form on 14.10.2015. According to the sum assured schedule the amount payable in accordance of the terms and conditions of the policy on this date was Rs.3,78,524/- and answering respondents honoured its liability and paid an amount of Rs.3,78,524/- to the complainant on 07.06.2016. Further, in the certificate of insurance issued to the deceased life assured. It is clearly mentioned that insured member is provided with decreasing insurance cover for sum assured, subject to terms and conditions contained in the policy.  The deceased life assured out of his own free will after being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract applied for the said policy and the respondents in accordance with the application from filled and executed by the deceased issued the said insurance policy.  The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant       has tendered in evince affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A, The Ld. counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Chander Mohan Mahajan Sr. Manager Ex. OP1/1, copy of statement of account of loan of Rajinder Kumar son of Buta Ram Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.  Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sreemaya Athikkat, Head Legal Ex. OP2/A, copy of certificate dated 29.1.2015 Ex. OP2/1, copy of the membership form Ex. OP2/2, copy of certificate of insurance SUD Life Ashiana Suraksha Ex. OP2/3, copy of the sum assured schedule Ex. OP2/4, copy of claim form death claim Ex. OP2/5 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the record on the file.

7        In this present complaint , the husband of the complainant, Mr Rajinder Sharma has availed house loan facility from the opposite party No1 vide account number 6303751100000344 for sum of Rs.10,36,410/- after availing the loan facility husband of the complainant used to make the payment of EMIS to opposite party as per directions of opposite party. Unfortunately husband of the complaint has expired on 11 august 2015. At the time of availing housing loan facility from the opposite party No. 1 by the husband of the complainant, opposite party 2 has insured the husband of the complainant and at that time opposite party No. 2 also assured that in case during the period of housing loan facility, if original loanee expired, then it is the responsibility of insurance company to make the remaining outstanding loan amount to the opposite party No. 1. The complainant many times requested the OP  No. 2 to adjust entire loan amount from the insurance policy, but the OP No. 2 has failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. OP No 1 stated in their written version that Mr. Rajinder Sharma has availed the housing loan of rupees 15,50,000 on 14^th December 2011 from opposite party No 1 Bank of India.  The complainant has informed the opposite party No 1 regarding the death of her husband on 11 August 2015. At the time of availing  housing loan facility from the opposite party no.1 the opposite party No.2 Star Union Dai-inchi Life Insurance has insured the husband of the complainant. It is denied that OP No. 2 also assured the husband of the complainant that in case during the period of Housing Loan facility from the OP1 , if original borrow has expired, then it is the responsibility of the insurance company to make the remaining outstanding loan amount to the OP1. There is no privity of contract between the said borrower Rajinder Sharma and OP1 with regard to the insurance policy of the OP2. As per terms and conditions contained in the security documents ,” Mr. Rajinder Sharma is liable to repay the outstanding amount to the OP1 and in case of his death, his legal heirs are liable to repay the outstanding amount along with upto date interest to the OP1”. OP No. 2 stated in their written version that ,they receipt of dully filled and signed Membership Application Form dated 26.12.2011 from Rajinder Sharma through OP1 issued the certificate of insurance in the name of life assured:-

The OP No. 2 on receipt of death claim intimation had paid the death claim amount of Rs 3,78,524.27/- on 07.06.2016 in the Rajinder Sharma bank account. The OP No. 2 has paid the said amount as per the amount specified in the sum assured schedule (Ex. OP2/4)  and the complainant cannot seek any further relief from the OP 2. The OP No. 2 got the death claim form on 14.10.2015 (Ex OP2/5) and accordingly as per sum assured schedule of the terms and conditions of the policy on this date was 3,78,524/- and OP2 paid the amount on dated 07/06/2016. It is specifically denied that the OP No. 2 is liable to pay the entire loan amount outstanding on the death of the insured. In the view of the above discussion and documents placed on record we are of the considered view that insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which is beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions as agreed between them. The Hon'ble State Commission has relied upon the ruling of the five judge bench of the Apex Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain and Anr. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1644. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr that in a contract of insurance the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the contract. Terms of contract of insurance have to be strictly construed. No exception can be made on the ground of equity- in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any word. In this case also contract of insurance between the parties is based on terms and conditions of the policy and must be followed in letter and spirit .

8        The complainant failed to provide any evidence to prove that the OPs assured the husband of the complainant that in case during the period of Housing Loan facility from the OP1, if original loanee expired, then it is the responsibility of insurance company to make the remaining outstanding loan amount to the OP1. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No. 2 placed on record the terms and conditions of the policy (Ex. OP 2/3) stated that “ the insured member is provided decreasing insurance cover for the sum Assured, subject to terms and conditions contained in master policy “  further, OP No. 2 provided Sum Assured Schedule (Ex OP 2/4) the amount payable in accordance of the terms and conditions of the policy on this date was Rs 3,78,524/- . And same transferred to the complainant’s account on 07/06/2016. (Ex OP 1/2 bank statement ). Thus, the policy is governed by the terms and conditions contained in the policy document, and as per the terms and conditions the OP2 is bound to pay the claim when it was filed and no relief which is beyond the terms and conditions of the policy can be granted. Thus , in view of the above discussion it is wrong and denied that both the parties have committed act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

20.09.2022