DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 407 of 8.10.2018

                                      Decided on:         13.12.2019

Naresh Kumar aged about 32 years, son of Sh. Itwari Lal, resident of House No.3060, Type-1, DMW Colony, Patiala.          

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Dewan Housing Finance Corporation commonly known as “DHFL”, Branch Office: SCO 94-95, New Market, Leela Bhawan, Bank Colony, Patiala, through its Manager.

2.       Dewan Housing Finance Corporation commonly known as “DHFL”, Head Office: Unit No.01 & 09,400, Plot No.A-9,4^th Floor, GD-ITL, Northex Tower, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Netaji Subash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi, Delhi 110034, through its Managing Director.

3.       Dewan Housing Finance Corporation commonly known as “DHFL”, Pramerica Life Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office & Communication Address: Fourth Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon ( Now Gurugram),Haryana, through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa:   President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur:      Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal:           Member   

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Munish Mittal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.R.S.Billing,Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1&2.

                                      Sh.Mayank Malhotra,Advocate, counsel for OP No.3 

 ORDER

                                   M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Naresh Kumar   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dewan Housing Finance Corporation and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that Itwari Lal, father of the complainant during his life time obtained house loan from OPs No.1&2, to the tune of Rs.11,85,752/- for a period of 11 years @ interest rate of 8.7%. EMI was Rs.20,338/- per month. The loan was sanctioned vide reference No.01132605, customer No.01773198, in the name of Itwari Lal.
3. It is pleaded that before disbursement of the loan, OPs No.1&2 disclosed the complainant and his father that to secure the loan amount, life insurance policy is mandatory. As such OPs No.1&2 obtained life insurance policy from OP No.3, which is their associate company. Complainant alongwith his father obtained the insurance policy from OP No.3 at the instance of OPs No.1&2.
4. Certificate of insurance vide certificate No. GC000006R659800 was issued under DHFL Home Shield (A group scheme under DHFL Pramerica Group Credit life + UIN..140N039V02).
5. It is pleaded that at the time of sanction of the insurance policy, the OPs were fully satisfied from Itwari Lal. After health verification by the employees of OPs, they have issued the insurance policy. Signatures of his father were obtained on papers, which were filled lateron by OPs.

Unfortunately Itwari Lal, father of the complainant died on 27.4.2018.Information regarding his death was duly conveyed to the OPs, so as to disburse the claim of death of his father, covered under the insurance policy.Complainant fulfilled the requisite formalities.

6. It is alleged that OP No.3 vide letter dated  30.7.2018 repudiated the claim on the ground that Itwari Lal has history of Alcoholic liver disease prior to the date of application and this information was not disclosed in the application.
7. It is further asserted that Itwari Lal was medically examined by the OPs. After being satisfied with the health condition and there being no medical history, the OPs had issued the insurance policy. There is no suppression of any fact by the complainant or his father. OPs have repudiated the claim on vague and baseless ground, which is untenable and unjustified.
8. It is further alleged that OPs No.1&2 are wrongly and illegally threatening to initiate recovery proceedings against the complainant and to get attach his property under SARFAESI Act, which is illegal and unlawful.
9. The complainant also got served legal notice through his  counsel requesting OPs to disburse the claim and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, on account of mental agony, harassment, humiliation and inconvenience. OPs gave vague reply to the legal notice.

Hence this complaint on the allegations that the OPs have indulged in mal practice and unfair trade practice.

10. Upon notice , OPs appeared through their respective counsel and filed written replies.
11. OPs No.1&2 in their written version raised preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer within Section 2(1)(d) of the Act,1986; the relationship of the borrower and creditor does not constitute consumer dispute; insurance is subject matter of solicitation. The request to avail insurance policy and provision of the policy and benefits thereunder is between the insurer and the insured. OP is neither insurer nor insured. It is not  a party to either the contract of insurance or the dispute.

The main grievance of the complainant is that of insurance amount. It is only Housing Finance Company. It is a 3^rd party to the transaction between the complainant and the insurance company. It has not privity of contract of insurance. The complaint has been filed without any legal ground and with ulterior motive for causing undue harassment to the OPs.The complaint should be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has no cause of action against OPs No.1&2.The main grievance of the complainant is towards OP No.3.

12. It is further pleaded that post repudiation of the claim submitted on behalf of borrower, OP No.3 has refunded a sum of Rs.1,06,372/- into the loan account of the borrower and same is reflected as on 31.8.2018.The last legal objection is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to go into the dispute as the jurisdiction of the Forum is barred,since proceedings have been initiated under SARFAESI Act and the notice has been produced by the complainant himself. The OP has also reproduced some provisions of Section 13 SARFAESI Act, the repetition  of which is not considered necessary for the sake of brevity.
13. On merits, it is admitted that father of the complainant availed loan at the variable rate of interest. All the other averments of the complainant are denied. The OP has reiterated his stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above.
14. OP No.3 in its reply also raised preliminary objections that complainant has no cause  of action ; that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.
15. It is further mentioned that the relationship of insurer and the insurance company is of trust and the complainant has tried to mislead the OP and this Forum.
16. It is pleaded that father of the complainant i.e. Itwari Lal has categorically evaded that he was suffering from alcoholic disease (ALD) prior to date of application. This information (true medical history) was not disclosed in the application/form, submitted by Itwari Lal before taking the insurance policy. He had concealed the fact about his medical history. Inspite of the misdeeds done by the complainant, OP has already refunded Rs.1,06,372/- as  premium including taxes to OPs No.1&2 towards full and final settlement and upon credit of the aforementioned amount, it stands discharged from all liabilities.
17. It is further mentioned that the OP had taken into consideration the provisions of Section 2 of the Protection of Policy holder’s Interests Regulations,2017, at the time of issuance of the policy to the life assured. The complaint has been filed just to harass and humiliate OP No.3.Complainant is not entitled for any relief. The claim of the complainant has already been repudiated by the OP.

The OP has categorically investigated the entire matter through their investigating agency namely ‘Delver’.

18. On merits, it is admitted that father of the complainant had taken policy namely DHFL Pramerica Group Credit Life + from OP on 24.8.2017. The policy had a risk coverage of 11 years i.e. uptp 23.8.2028. OP has received premium of Rs.1,06,372/- as one time premium from Itwari Lal. Letter was issued to him regarding that.
19. It is denied that the policy was issued after due verification of deceased Itwari Lal.
20. In its further version the OP has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above and controverted all the averments of the complainant. In the end OP No.3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
21. In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit,m Ex.CA, copy of Aadhar card, Ex.C1, copy of loan sanction letter, Ex.C2, copy of certificate of insurance,Ex.C3, copy of death certificate, Ex.C4, copy of reply of DHFL, Ex.C5, copy of legal notice, Ex.C6, postal receipts, Exs.C6 to C9, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.C10.
22. OPs No.1&2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jeewan Garg, Ex.OPA and power of attorney, Ex.OP1.
23. OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmal Singh, Ex.OPB, copy of application form, Ex.OP2, copy of claim form, Ex.OP3, copy of investigation report, Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 30.7.2018,Ex.OP5, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.
24. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
25. The parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.
26. The admitted facts are that Itwari Lal, father of the complainant availed house loan from OPs No.1&2 and the loan was got insured from OP No.3 on payment of Rs.1,06,372/- as premium. Itwari Lal died on 27.4.2018 Complainant being son of  Itwari Lal lodged the claim with the insurance company after completing all the formalities but the OP No.3 has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.7.2018( Ex.C5).
27. A perusal of this letter reveals that the OP has tried to justify the repudiation on the ground that Itwari Lal had history of alcoholic liver disease prior to date of application and this information was not disclosed in the application. Therefore, the repudiation is on the ground, firstly that Itwari Lal was having history of alcoholic liver disease and secondly he has not disclosed this information in the application.         
28. The OP has produced on record copy of the application form, Ex.OP2. There is a column for medical history of the life to be assured. Eight questions were required to be answered regarding medical history. There is space in the shape of blocks for giving answers .In addition to the space the words ‘yes’ ‘No’ are also mentioned. From this fact, it can be inferred that the applicant was having option to tick the answers of  the queries in the blocks or on the words ‘yes’ ‘No’. The answers of all the questions are ticked as ‘Yes’. Therefore, the contention of the OP that the life assured had answered regarding his medical history in negative, is not acceptable.
29. Assuming that the insured had replied negatively to all the questions, in that situation the question arises  that whether OP is able to prove that the assured Itwari Lal was having history of alcoholic liver disease.
30. The only reference of the OP is on the investigation report, Ex.OP4. The OP has got the matter investigated from their investigating agency ‘Delver’.

It is noticed from this report that the investigator has given findings on the basis of discreet check. The investigator visited the area where the insured was being residing and met several people where some of the people verbally confirmed that LA was Govt. employee and had good earning but his habits took him on the way of death as he was severe alcoholic and chronic smoker. Time to time he used to take treatment from different hospitals but he could not cured and died at home due to liver disease on 27.4.2018.On the same day he was cremated at local cremation place.

31. It is further mentioned that the investigator also met claimant who verbally confirmed that LA was fond of alcohol and beedi. He had been suffering from jaundice from few months prior to his death and he had taken treatment from Vardhman Mahavir hospital and Mittal hospital but he could not cured and died at home.
32. It is also mentioned that the claimant provided some treatment papers where they found that LA had history of ALD since 8 years.
33. The net conclusion is based on this discreet check. As there is no medical record, the investigator has not visited the Vardhman Mahavir Hospital and Mittal Hospital to verify this fact or to  collect any evidence.
34. The investigator has mentioned that he made the enquiry from some people but names of the people are not mentioned. No statement of any person was recorded to corroborate this fact. Even otherwise also the health status cannot be held proved on the verbal statements of neighbour or the complainant.
35. The investigator was expected to collect evidence to prove that the insured was suffering from any disease or alcoholic liver disease and was taking treatment for this disease. It was also to be proved that the insured was aware of this fact and only then he was to be held  guilty of concealment of material facts.
36. In these circumstances, the conclusion is that OP No.3 has failed to prove that insured was suffering from any alcoholic liver disease and he had concealed this fact . Therefore, the repudiation of the claim is not sustainable, it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
37. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted against OP No.3 with Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation and Rs.30,000/- as compensation, for causing harassment mental agony etc. to the complainant. Complaint against OPs No.1&2 stands dismissed.
38. The OP No.3 is directed to pay the amount as was payable under the policy terms and conditions. The OP No.3 is entitled to adjust the amount of Rs.1,06,372/- already refunded to OPs No.1&2.OP No.3 will also pay interest chargeable by OPs No.1&2 on this amount from 27.4.2018 till payment. Compliance of the order be made by OP No.3 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
39. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:13.12.2019     

                    B.S.Dhaliwal            Inderjeet Kaur            M. P. Singh Pahwa

                         Member                              Member                       President