Haryana

Kurukshetra

13/2017

Gurvinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Dayal Singh

21 Sep 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

                                                               Complaint Case No.13 of 2017.

                                                               Date of institution: 16.01.2017.

                                                               Date of decision: 21.09.2021.

 

Gurvinder Kaur widow of late Sh. Jagmal S/o Karam  Singh resident of Dera, Karam Singh, Jasso Patti, Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                             Versus

1.H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch Office Pehowa, District Kurukshetra through is Branch Manager.

2.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road,Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 through its Managing Director/authorized Signatory.….Opposite parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.

                   Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

         

Present:      Sh. Shiv Dayal Advocate for complainant.   

                   Sh.Rajan  Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh.Atul Mittal Advocate for the OP No.2.

                  

 

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Gurvinder Kaur against H.D.F.C. Bank, the opposite party.

 

2.                It is stated in the complaint that the husband of complainant namely Sh. Jagmal Singh was having bank account No.07971530009680 with the Op bank and under the said bank account, the Op has issued a platinum card bearing No.4363030100429877 and under the scheme of Op bank, the person who avail the said platinum card will be insured for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith other benefits.  It is further alleged that the husband of complainant expired on 07.05.2016 in a roadside accident an FIR bearing No.205 dt. 08.05.2016 was registered in P.S. Pehowa, Distt. Kurukshetra under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC.  Information regarding death of Jagmal was given to the Op.  It is further alleged that the complainant being nominee of her husband lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Op to release the death claim of R.10,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and all the other benefits and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

 

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections regarding locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the Op is a bank and its role is only as a corporate agent/facilitator, the deceased was insured with HDFC Ergo Insurance Company by the Op bank free of cost being its account-holder and debit card holder.  However, the insurance cover under the said debit card can be claimed only on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions of the insurance company and the same was provided to the insurer at the time of issuing of debit card with key to use booklet; that the complainant had not used the debit card for even a single purchase for activation of such card to cover personal accident insurance as per the condition “The Personal Accident Insurance Cover will come in force only after you make your first successful payment transaction at any Merchant Outlet”.  The complainant had also not fulfilled the other condition of insurance cover as the complainant was bound to inform regarding the death of the deceased within one month from his death to the bank or insurance company; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties because the deceased was insured with HDFC, Ergo the insurance company and the same was disclosed by the Op bank, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the Op; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 

4.                OP No.2 has filed its separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant or any other legal heir had never approached to the answering OP for any claim under the policy nor any alleged accident was ever informed to the Ops, as alleged. The complaint of the complainant is misuse of process of law and the same was filed by the complainant just to  harass the Ops and further to grab the money from them without any due course. It is submitted that claim of the complainant is not genuine and the complainant had approached this Commission with a concocted and false story. It is submitted that the OP No.1 HDFC Bank has obtained one card sure Package Policy covering their Debit Card Holders i.e. Platinum, Gold, Women Advantage Card, subject to the terms and conditions under which Mr.Jagmal Singh might have covered.

Section II-Personal Accident cover:

          Conditions applicable to cover under Section III(B).

1. Claims Procedure: Upon the happening of any event giving rise or likely to give rise to claim under this policy , the insured shall

1. Give immediate notice thereof in writing to the nearest office with a copy to the policy issuing office of the company as well as lodge forthwith the complaint with the police.
2. Delivered to the company, within 14 days of the date on which the event shall have come to his knowledge, a detailed statement in writing of the loss or damage, with an estimate of intrinsic value of the property lost and the amount of damage sustained and

Tendered to the company all reasonable information, assistance and proof in connection with any claim.

                  The said story is merely an afterthought just to get compensation from this court and to extort money from the answering OP. It is also submitted that the present complaint is pre mature as  no claim has been filed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    by the complainant with the answering OP.  complainant has forwarded a false story and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

5.                 The complainant in support of her case has filed her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed her evidence.

 

6.                On the other hand, Ops  in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.      

 

7.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

 

8.                The Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that  husband of the complainant namely Sh. Jagmal Singh was having bank account No.07971530009680 with the Op bank and under the said bank account, the Op has issued a platinum card bearing No.4363030100429877 and under the scheme of Op bank, the person who avail the said platinum card was be insured for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith other benefits.  It is further argued that the husband of complainant expired on 07.05.2016 in a roadside accident and FIR bearing No.205 dated 08.05.2016 was registered in P.S. Pehowa, Dist. Kurukshetra under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 IPC.  Information regarding death of Jagmal was given to the Op.  It is also argued that the complainant being nominee of her husband lodged the claim with the Op and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op did not settle the claim of complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

9.                 On the other hand learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that the insurance cover under the said debit card can be claimed only on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions of the insurance company and the same was provided to the insurer at the time of issuing of debit card with key to use booklet. It is further argued that the complainant had not used the debit card for even a single purchase for activation of such card to cover personal accident insurance as per the condition “The Personal Accident Insurance Cover will come in force only after you make your first successful payment transaction at any Merchant Outlet”.  The complainant had also not fulfilled the other condition of insurance cover as the complainant was bound to inform regarding the death of the deceased within one month from his death to the bank or insurance company. It is argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

10.              The Learned counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that no information regarding the death of life assured was given to the OP No.2 by the complainant and as such the present complaint is pre mature one.  It is further argued that policy in question has not been placed on the file by the complainant. It is also argued that the complainant never approached the OP no.2 regarding the claim in question. It is further argued that the story put forwarded by the complainant is merely an afterthought just to get compensation from this Commission and to extort money from the OP No.2.

 

11.              After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file very carefully, we are of the view that issuance of The Personal Accident Insurance Cover to the complainant by the OPs is not in dispute.  The OP No.2 has argued that the complainant has not informed the Ops well in time regarding the accident and has not lodged the claim but this contention of the  OPs is without any force.  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 16.01.2017 and it is September 2021 i.e. the present complaint was filed about four years and all the documents regarding copy of FIR, death certificate are on the file. The Ops till date have not settled the claim of the complainant and this fact shows the malafide intention of the OP bank. The stand of the OP No.2 that the complainant failed to inform the OP about the death claim  of Jagmal Singh is falsified by the document Ex.C-6 because this document/letter was sent to the Op no.1 through registered post. Therefore, the present complaint cannot be said to be premature one. From the copy of  FIR Ex.C-2 copy of post mortem report Ex.C-3, and death certificate Ex.C-11, the death of insured is amply proved. Issuance of the  insurance cover note under the Platinum card is also not in dispute. The complainant is entitled to claim under the policy but the said claim of the complainant has not been paid by the OP No.2. Therefore, the OP No.2 is  liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant and for non payment of the claim there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

12.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP- No.2 to pay the sum assured i.e. Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest  @ Rs.6% per annum from the date of  filing of the present complaint i.e.  16.01.2017 till its realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to Rs.20000/- as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to him and the litigation expenses. It is also made clear that if the OP No.2 failed to make the compliance of this order within  a period of 45 days from the date of this order,   the complainant will  also be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OP No.2. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:21.09.2021                                                     (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)        

 Member                                     Member.