BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 56/2006 Filed on 22/02/2006

Dated: 30..11..2010

Complainants:

1. V. Reji, Athiyara Vilakathu Veedu, Odankuzhy Lane, Near Devi Temple, Arayalloor, Thirumala, Thiruvananthapuram – 6.

2. Neeraj, aged 10 yrs., of ..do.. ..do..

3. Namratha, aged 4 yrs., ..do.. ..do..

(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

Opposite Parties:

1. M/s. City Bank, Credit Card Centre, Represented by the Chief Ex. Officer, Global Consumer Bank, Insurance Operations, P.B.No: 4830, Annassalai, Chennai.

2. The Manager, Customer Care, Card Member Services, P.B.No. 4830, Annasalai, Chennai.

   (Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. R. Balaji)

    

3. Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by the Managing Director, Corporate Claims Department, Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014.

(By Adv. V. Manikantan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 15..09..2010, the Forum on 30..11..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, the 1^st complainant's husband Cap. Anil Prakash C.S was working at Kerala Aviation Training Centre, Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, who had taken a Credit Card from the City Bank vide Card No. 5425 569 1558 67005 in the year 2000 and he had been using the Credit Card since then, that 1^st complainant's husband died in an Air crash at Hyderabad on 29/12/2004, that the Credit Card holder had the protection of Suraksha Credit Shield and also Suraksha Personal Accident Benefits, that 1^st oppostie party was collecting the premia every year, that in the meantime 1^st complainant's husband joined Andhra Pradesh Aviation Academy and he continued the business transaction with City Bank. On 4/1/2005 the 1^st opposite party had sent a letter offering condolences and also requesting to produce all relevant documents to consider whether C.S. Anil Prakash was covered under the Suraksha Package, that on 28/1/2005 1^st complainant sent a letter requesting the 1^st opposite party to forward the relevant forms for claiming the death benefits, that opposite parties sent a list of documents to be submitted to process the claim, thereafter 1^st complainant sent the Death Certificate and Post-mortem Report of C.S. Anil Prakash. On 8/4/2005 the 2^nd opposite party, the Manager, Customer Care, Card Member Services, Chennai sent a letter stating that the Air accident Insurance has been withdrawn from the New India Insurance Company and for further clarification the 1^st complainant was asked to contact the New India Insurance Company, that thereafter on 31/10/2005 1^st complainant received a letter from the 3^rd opposite party stating that person engaged in aviation are not covered under the policy and 1^st complainant's claim was rejected, that there is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to give all the benefits envisaged under the Suraksha Credit Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident with respect to 1^st complainant's husband holding City Bank Card No. 5425 5691 5586 7005 along with a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice 2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version contending inter alia that they are engaged in the business of Credit Cards besides other banking activities and all Credit Card holders would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed therein for its usage, that husband of the 1^st complainant was a Credit Card holder which he had obtained while he was employed at Kerala Aviation Training Centre, Airport at Thiruvananthapuram and he had been using the same extensively for his personal benefits, that the employment of the husband of the 1^st complainant being in Aviation, is of high risk nature as categorised since they are prone to accidents whilst in their employment. It is submitted that Bank had been collecting premium for Suraksha Personal Accident, as Suraksha is a paid insurance facility that is available only for primary card members under the terms and conditions of the Group policy purchased by Citi Bank from TATA AIG Life Insurance Company and Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Ltd., that the Brochure giving the terms and conditions of the policy are sent to all customers in which the exclusion clause is clearly stated under the heading "Details of exclusion" since the Suraksha Insurance Policy is in the nature of Group Insurance Policy wherein the purchaser of the policy is the opposite party while the beneficiary thereunder are its several Credit Card customers who opt to be covered by the Insurance policy and who agree to pay the required premium in respect thereof, that the Bank had all interests to help the complainants being dependants to avail the insurance claims, that Bank had collected all the details for it to be decided by the 3^rd opposite party, who are the Insurance providers, for them to decide on the claim. It is submitted by opposite parties 1 & 2 that the Bank does not offer any insurance policies and the Bank only acts a payment mechanism to help customers to avail a variety of insurance policies from other Companies as well. It is understood that the 3^rd opposite party vide its letter dated 31/10/2005 had rejected the claim papers on the grounds of Exclusions under policy condition stating that persons engaged in Aviation are not covered under the policy, that the Bank had absolutely no role in processing of claim papers and that it was the 3^rd opposite party who had to decide on the same. Hence opposite parties 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. 3^rd opposite party filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, that the 3^rd opposite party issued a letter dated 31/10/2005 to the 1^st complainant stating that as per policy condition No. 4 (c) under "Exceptions", persons engaged in Aviation are not covered under the policy, that there is no cause of action for the complainants against 3^rd opposite party since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 3^rd opposite party towards the complainants. Hence 3^rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainants are entitled to get the benefits invisaged under Suraksha Credit Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident with respect to Citi Bank Card No. 5425 5691 5586 7005?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether complainants are entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P11. In rebuttal, 3^rd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the deceased Cap. Anil Prakash was a Credit Card holder of the 1^st opposite party vide Card No. 5425 5691 5586 7005 and he was using the same. There is no point in dispute that the Credit Card holder had the protection of the Suraksha Credit Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident benefits. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Credit Card. Ext. P2 is the statement period from 18/3/2002 to 18/4/2002 issued by Citi Bank dated 9/5/2002. On perusal of Ext. P2 it is seen that 1^st opposite party had collected Rs. 25.70 towards Suraksha Credit Shield premia and Rs. 14.70 towards Suraksha Personal Accident premia. Ext. P3 series show various statements of account issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P4 shows various statements of account issued by 1^st opposite party. Ext. P5 is the letter issued by 1^st opposite party stating condolences on behalf of the City Bank on the death of Cap. Anil Prakash. As per Ext. P5 the representative of Cap. Anil Prakash were requested to send documents to consider whether the Card member was covered under the Suraksha package. Ext. P6 is the letter from 1^st complainant to M/s. Citi Bank Card Centre, Chennai dated 28/1/2005 requesting them to forward the relevant forms for claiming the Insurance/Death benefits. Ext. P7 is the postal receipt dated 2/2/2005. Ext. P8 is the letter from the Citi Bank to Andhra Pradesh Aviation, Hyderabad requesting them to send the requisite documentation as per the list enclosed therein as soon as to process the claim. Ext. P9 is the letter from the 1^st complainant dated 21/2/2005 to M/s. Citi Bank Card Centre, Chennai informing them about the enclosure of Death Certificate and Post-mortem Report along with FIR of Cap. Anil Prakash. Ext. P10 is the letter from the Manager, Customer Care to the representative of Cap. Anil Prakash informing that the Air accident Insurance has been recently withdrawn from New India Insuance Company and requested to contact New India Insurance directly for further clarifications. Ext. P11 is the letter from Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited dated October 31, 2005 to the 1^st complainant informing her their inability to consider complainants claim on the ground that as per policy condition No. 4(c) under Exclusions persons engaged in Aviation are not covered under the policy. 1^st complainant has been cross examined by 3^rd opposite party. In the cross examination of the 1^st complainant she has admitted that her husband had no direct relationship with 3^rd opposite party. 3^rd opposite party has filed affidavit in support of their contention in the version and has marked Ext. D1. Ext. D1 is the Group Personal Accident Policy Schedule. As per Ext. D1 the period of Insurance 12 months from 2/9/2004 to 1/9/2005, Name of the insured is Citi Bank N.A, Agency No. BK 000003, Policy No. PACIT 10001000103. As per Ext. D1 policy there are terms, conditions and exclusions which are part of the contract. Under Exceptions as per clause 4(c), Company shall not be liable under this policy for payment of compensatin in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured person whilst engaging in Aviation, whilst mounting into, dismounting from or travelling in any aircraft other than as a passenger (fare paying or otherwise) in any duly licensed standard type of aircraft anywhere in the world, 'standard type of Aircraft' means any aircraft duly licensed to carry passengers (for hire or otherwise) by appropriate authority irrespective of whether such an aircraft is privately owned OR chartered OR operated by a regular airline OR whether such an air craft has a single engine or multiple engine. It is the stance of the 3^rd opposite party that 3^rd opposite party very rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant in respect of the death of the insured Anil Prakash, since it is an admitted fact that insured died due to air crash while flying Flight Hansa on 28/12/2004 and policy terms issued to the insured specifically excluded all claims arising while engaging in aviation, whilst mounting into, dismounting from or travelling in any aricraft. There is no point in dispute that Cap. Anil Prakash died due to air crash while flying. There is no point in dispute that opposite parties 1 & 2 collected premia for Suraksha Personal Accident Benefits and Suraksha Credit Shield. On going through Ext. D1 and evidence available on records we find the repudiation of death claim by the 3^rd opposite party is in accordance with terms and conditions and exclusions provided therein. There is no materials to show that Cap. Anil Prakash was travelled in aircraft as a passenger in duly licensed standard type of aircraft. 1^st complainant's husband died in an air crash at Hyderabad while flying Flight Hansa on 28/12/2004. As such 3^rd opposite party is not liable under the policy for payment of compensation in respect of death of Cap. Anil Prakash as per Ext. D1 policy. It is argued by the complainant that 1^st opposite party assured the Credit Card holder the protection of Suraksha Credit Card Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident Benefits. As per Ext. P10 1^st opposite party informed the 1^st complainant that air accident insurance has been withdrawn recently from New India Insurance Company. There is no document to show that the same was intimated to the deceased in time. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties never adduced evidence nor furnished any documents in support of their versions. It is averred in the versions of opposite parties 1 & 2 that the use of Credit Card is governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further averred in the versions of opposite parties 1 & 2 that they had requested through letter dated 4/1/2005 the relevant documents to consider whether the card holder was covered under Suraksha package, the bank had collected all the details for it to be decided by the 3^rd opposite party, who are the insurance providers for them to decide on the claim. Complainant never adduced any documents to claim the Credit Shield Protection (outstanding on the card which is coverd by the Insurance). Though opposite parties 1 & 2 have not furnished any evidence in support of their versions, in view of the evidence available on record especially evidence adduced by 3^rd opposite party we are of the considered opinion that 3^rd opposite party has acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Repudiation of death claim is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. In view of the above we find complainant has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of November, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No: 56/2006

APPENDIX

1. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : V. Reji

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of the credit card

P2 : The statement period from 18/3/2002 to 18/4/2002 issued by Citi Bank dated 9/5/2002.

P3 : Series are various statements of account issued by the 1^st opposite party.

P4 : Various statements of account issued by 1^st opposite party.

P5 : Letter issued by 1^st opposite party dated 4/1/2005

P6 : Letter from 1^st complainant to M/s. Citi Bank Card Centre, Chennai dated 28/1/2005.

P7 : The postal receipt dated 2/2/2005

P8 : The letter from the Citi Bank to Andhra Pradesh Aviation Hyderabad dated 2/2/2005.

P9 : The letter from the 1^st complainant dated 21/2/2005 to M/s. Citi Bank Card Centre, Chennai.

P10 : The letter from the Manager, Customer Care to the representative of Cap. Anil Prakash informing that the Air Accident Insurance.

P11 : The lette from Royal Sundaram Allince Insurance Company Ltd. dated 31/10/2005 to the 1^st complainant

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : G. Vinaya Prakash

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Group Personal Accident Policy Schedule.

PRESIDENT.