Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/175

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA General Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sarbjit Singh Brar

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

CC No.              :     175 of 2018

Date of Institution:      1.11.2018

Date of Decision :     24.04.2019

 

1. Gurpreet Singh Chauhan Advocate aged about 32 years son of Gurbhej Singh Chauhan.
2. Kushanpreet Kaur Chauhan aged about 31 years w/o Gurpreet Singh Chauhan.
3. Arihant Preet Singh aged about 5 years son of Gurpreet Singh Chauhan through Natural and Legal Guardian father Gurpreet Singh Chauhan s/o Gurbhej Singh
4. Nayabpreet Kaur Chauhan aged about 10 months d/o  Gurpreet Singh Chauhan through Natural and Legal Guardian Mother Kushanpreet Kaur Chauhan w/of Gurpreet Singh Chauhan.

All residents of Village Dhilwan Khurd, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainants

Versus

 

1. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, First Floor, Ferhs Icon, Survey No.28, Dddanekundi, Bangalore-560037, India through its Managing Director.
2. Sidhi Parikh, Senior Executive Claims, Mistry Bhawan, 4^th Floor, Next to KC College, Dinshaw Vacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

cc no.-175 of 2018

3. Spectrum Education Consultants, Opp Axis Bank,    Road, Faridkot through its Managing Director.

                                                                       .....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sarabjit Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Dinesh Jindal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to them to make payment of Rs.90,000/-including other charges due to trip interruption for Travel Insurance Policies and for further directing OPs to pay compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that complainants purchased travel insurance policies from OP-1 through OP-4 for Rs.1199/-each and paid total sum of Rs.4776/- for international trip of Australia. Insurance Policies bearing no.SX7658998, SX7658997, SX7658996 and SX7658995 were issued to them and these were valid

cc no.-175 of 2018

from 31.07.2018 to 19.08.2018. It is submitted that schedule for the journey of complainants was to begin form New Delhi to Columbo, Sri Lanka, from Columbo to Kuala Lumper, Malaysia and from Malaysia to Melbourne and return from Melbourne to Columbo, Sri Lanka through Sri Lankan Airlines. Complainants purchased return multi ticket for the trip on 6.07.2018 for Rs.1,74,850/- and they reached New Delhi Airport on 30.07.2018 for departure to Malaysia, but Srilankan Airlines refused them to board the flight on objection that as per norms and regulations of Srilankan Airlines, complainants are having E-visas of Malaysia. Malaysia visas were valid for 3 months and without prior intimation to complainants, Srilankan Airlines refused them to board the plane. Complainants had valid Malaysian and Australian visas. Srilankan Airlines directed complainants to get direct flight for Malaysia and also advised to cancel the previous ticket. Previous ticket of Rs.1,74,850/-was multi ticket and complainants were forced to cancel the entire ticket and it was not possible to cancel only for Malaysia, but ultimately, complainants cancelled the entire ticket and suffered a penalty of Rs,33,000/-. They  even dropped their idea to visit Malaysia and booked the direct flight for Melbourne, Australia for Rs.2,10,000/- and suffered a loss of Rs.70,000/-for cancelling the previous tickets and for booking the new tickets and they also had to spend Rs.5800/-for hotel and taxi rent. It is further submitted that on reaching Melbourne, Australia on 3.08.2018, complainant no.1 sent e-mail to OP-2 and claimed loss of Rs.1,20,000/-for whole family due to  trip interruption. Next day on

cc no.-175 of 2018

4.08.2018, he received e-mail from OP-2 vide which it refused to process the claim of complainants on the ground that as per policy rules, trip interruption is not covered due to visa problem. It is further submitted that in reality there is no such condition on policy certificates issued to complainants that trip interruption due to visa problem is not covered under the policy in question. Complainant again sent e-mail to OP-2 on 4.08.2018 and in reply to that, OP-2 directed complainants to send claim forms and other documents to them and on 29.08.2018, complainants sent claims alongwith relevant documents to OP-2 through registered post. Complainants claim Rs.23,800/-for each person ie Rs.90,000/-for all of them alongwith other charges as trip interruption charges, but vide letter dated 15.09.2018 repudiated the genuine claim of complainants on false grounds. Despite repeated requests by complainant, OPs have not made payment of genuine insurance claim and this action of OPs in not passing the claim of complainants amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainants have prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                         The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

cc no.-175 of 2018

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts requiring voluminous evidence which is not permissible in the summary proceedings of the Consumer Forum. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that they have lodged the claim for trip cancellation. Complainant booked air tickets for their journey from Delhi to Columbo dated 30.07.2018 and further journey from Columbo to Kuala Lumpur dated 30.07.2018. scheduled trip via Columbo was cancelled due to visa problem and complainants had taken alternate route. It is averred that claim of complainants for trip cancellation due to visa problem is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and it was rightly rejected as per rules and no claim is payable to him. Moreover, complainants are not the consumers of answering OP and they have no locus standi to file the present complaint and complaint filed by them is not maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. however, on merits, OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but it is admitted by OP-1 that complainants purchased the said insurance policy and were insured under policy in question and averred that claim of complainants is not payable on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the said Insurance Policy, trip cancellation due to visa problem is not covered under the policy and is not payable. It is reiterated that there is no

cc no.-175 of 2018

deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                   Notice issued to OP-3 was duly served but despite services of summons alongwith complaint, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel to contest the case, therefore, after long waiting, when no body appeared on their part, and then OP-3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated  18.12.2019. Registered cover containing complaint and relevant documents was also sent to OP-2 but it did not receive back undelivered and it was presumed to be served. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit and when no appeared in the Forum on date fixed, then OP-2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.01.2019.

6                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-17 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rishikant Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/10 and then, closed the evidence.

 

 

cc no.-175 of 2018

8                                            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.

9                                            From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainants is that they purchased travel insurance policies from OP-1 for Rs.1199/-each and paid total sum of Rs.4776/- for international trip to Australia. Said Insurance Policies were valid from 31.07.2018 to 19.08.2018. It is submitted that as per schedule, journey was to begin form New Delhi to Columbo, Sri Lanka, from Columbo to Kuala Lumper, Malaysia and from Malaysia to Melbourne and return from Melbourne to Columbo, Sri Lanka through Sri Lankan Airlines. They purchased return multi ticket for trip on 6.07.2018 for Rs.1,74,850/- and they reached New Delhi Airport on 30.07.2018 for departure to Malaysia, but Srilankan Airlines refused them to board the flight on objection that as per norms and regulations of Srilankan Airlines, complainants are having E-visas of Malaysia. It is  submitted that Malaysian visas were valid for 3 months and without prior intimation to complainants, Srilankan Airlines refused them to board the plane. Complainants had valid Malaysian and Australian visas. Srilankan Airlines directed them to get direct flight for Malaysia and cancel the ticket. As per their direction, complainants got cancelled the previous ticket worth Rs.1,74,850/- which was multi ticket and complainants were forced to cancel the entire ticket as it was not

cc no.-175 of 2018

possible to cancel only for Malaysia, but ultimately, complainants cancelled the entire ticket and suffered a penalty of Rs,33,000/-. They  did not visit Malaysia and booked the direct flight for Australia for Rs.2,10,000/- and suffered huge loss of Rs.70,000/-for cancelling the previous tickets and for booking the new tickets and had to spend Rs.5800/-for hotel and taxi rent. On reaching Melbourne, Australia on 3.08.2018, complainant no.1 sent e-mail to OP-2 and claimed loss of Rs.1,20,000/-for whole family due to  trip interruption, which they refused to pay on the ground that as per policy rules, trip interruption due to visa problem is not covered. Complainants made several requests to OPs to clear their claim, but despite repeated requests OPs did not do anything needful which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainants have prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-17.

10                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued before the Forum that complainants have concealed the material facts from this Forum that they have lodged the claim for trip cancellation. Complainant booked air tickets for their journey from Delhi to Columbo dated 30.07.2018 and further journey from Columbo to Kuala Lumpur dated 30.07.2018. Scheduled trip via Columbo was cancelled due to visa problem and complainants had taken alternate route. Claim sought by complainants for trip cancellation due to visa problem is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and it was rightly rejected as per rules and nothing is payable. All the

cc no.-175 of 2018

other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                       To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record copies of insurance policy Ex C-1 to Ex C-4 that clearly reveal that all complainants were insured under policies in question for travelling for the period from 31.07.2018 to 19.08.2018 for Rs.1194/-each. Ex C-5 further proves the pleadings of complainants that shows the travel schedule i.e complainants were to begin their journey from Delhi to Columbo and from there to Kuala Lumpur and from Kuala Lumpur to Melbourne, Australia and return from Melbourne to Columbo and then from Columbo to back at Delhi. Ex C-6 is copy of document that shows the confirmation of air travel tickets of complainant. Ex C-7, Ex C-7 A, Ex C- 7B and Ex C-8  are copies of e-mails showing correspondence occurred between complainant no.1 and OP wherein complainant has narrated his grievance to OP and has made request to them to pass his genuine claim. Ex C-10 to Ex C-13 are copies of claim forms vide which complainants lodged claim with Opposite party. Ex C-14 to Ex C-16 are repudiation letters dated 15.09.2018 vide which genuine claim of complainants was rejected by OP on the ground that trip cancellation is not covered under the insurance policies in question. Ex C-17 is an important document placed on record by complainant counsel that clearly reveals that trip cancellation alongwith boarding charges is covered under insurance policies purchased by complainants. Thus, in the light of document Ex C-17, plea taken by OP

cc no.-175 of 2018

that trip cancellation is not covered under insurance policies in question, has no legs to stand upon. Ld counsel for complainant further argued that OPs cannot deny the payment of claim on alleged terms and conditions which are never supplied to complainants. The alleged terms and conditions are drafted by OPs themselves and complainants had no knowledge regarding these terms and conditions. It is general tendency of Insurance Companies to not supply the terms and conditions at the time of issuance of policy and at the time of making payment, they repudiate the claim on behest of terms and conditions which are never supplied to the insured. Ld counsel for complainant has placed reliance on citation 2008(3)RCR (Civil) Page 111 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs Smt Usha Yadav & Others, wherein our Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that it seems that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims. He has also placed reliance on citation 2001(1)CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 titled as M/s Modern Insulators Ltd Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that clauses which are not explained to complainant are not binding upon the insured and are required to be ignored. Furthermore, it is generally seen that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims.   Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the pleadings of complainants and all documents are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

cc no.-175 of 2018

12                                    From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that despite submission of requisite documents and completion of all formalities, OP-1 have not processed the claim of complainant on false ground and thus, they have been deficient in providing services to complainant. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-1 is directed to pay the claim amount of 1200 US Dollars i.e 300 US Dollars for each complainant as insured under the policies in question under head for trip cancellation and interruption claims equivalent to Indian currency alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 1.11.2018 i.e from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainants as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by them and for litigation expenses incurred on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-2 and OP-3 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.04.2019                 

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                        Member                        President