Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

93/2013

S.Renuka Devi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi

03 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  18.04.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  03.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 03^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.93/2013

 

 

S.Renuka Devi,

W/o.Late K.Saravana Murthy,

Flat No:3 Munusamy Garden,

John Basu Street Extn.,

M.M.C Post, Chennai:600 051.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.HDFC Bank,

No: 3 Mc. Dowell House,

2^nd Line Beach Parry’s Corner,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.HDFC BANK Ltd.,

Central Processing Unit,

No:169-A, 3^rd Floor,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Old No: 559; New No:528,

Anna Salai,

Teynampet,

Chennai  600 018.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.04.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi, J.Sunder,

                                                                 B.V.Sai Lakshmi, V.Mohana Priya

 

Counsel for   1^st & 2^nd opposite Parties   : M/s. Pass Associates

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                       : M.B.Gopalan, N.Vijayaraghavan,

                                                                 M.B. Raghavan

         

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to order the personal accident insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with delay interest and compensation  with cost   u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant husband K.Saravanamurthy had an account in the 1^st Opposite Party HDFC Bank in Account No.0166000000844. The 1^st Opposite Party had pleased to issue a Gold Debit Card having number 4214 2405 0301 9487 to the Complainant’s husband Saravanamurthy through the 2^nd Opposite Party and the same was under his use.  The Complainant’s husband had nominated her as his nominee. The Complainant’s husband Mr. Saravanamurthy who holds the said Gold Debit Card met with road accident on 17.07.2009 and died at the spot. His accidental death has been reported to Royapettah Police Station in Crime No.471/2009. After the death of her husband she made representation to the 1^st Opposite Party requesting them to assist her to claim the Accidental Death Benefit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. On receipt of claim forms she has submitted the claim statement along with the requirements that called for (i.e.) Indemnity Bond, affidavit, ration card copy, death certificate, attested copy of the FIR, attested copy of the Panchanama, copy of the deceased driving license, death Report etc., in September 2010.The Opposite Parties  caused ex-ordinary delay in processing the claim made by the Complainant and thereby the Opposite Parties failed to render service in respect of the gold debit card holder policy taken by the Complainant  deceased husband. Hence the Complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 24.10.2011 and there was no response from them. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint against the Opposite Parties to pay the accident insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and cost of litigation  charges.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complaint lacks merit as the Complainant has not filed any insurance cover note as alleged by them. Hence, the present Complaint is bad in law. In any event, even assuming but not admitting, the Complaint is invalid as even according to the own document submitted by the Complainant namely FIR No.471 of 2009 dated 17.07.2009 registered under Section 174 of the code of Criminal Procedure, which states that Complainant’s husband died under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the accident alleged to have occurred to the deceased is not proved in accordance with law. In any event, the allegation that in September 2010 the Complainant had filed necessary claim form and documents is denied as false and that the alleged claim form does not bear any acknowledgement either of this respondent or by HDFC ERGO General Insurance. The alleged claim form and supporting documents are the Complainant’s self creation for the purpose of this claim. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any claim or compensation as claimed. Since these Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency to the Complainant and her Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Any claim having ever been lodged with this Opposite Party under such policy. The Complainant’s documents contain a claim Form and an Indemnity/Affidavit. But none of these documents mention any policy Number. The policy and period of Insurance columns are found blank. The Complaint itself was not filed against this Opposite Party which has been impleaded subsequently as an afterthought without any basis or material particulars. This Opposite Party has not promised payment of Rs.5,00,000/-. Any representation by the 1^st Opposite Party does not bind this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is not aware that the Complainant’s husband died in road accident on 17.07.2009. No claim was reported within any reasonable time before being impleaded in this Complaint. Even the Complaint was originally filed only against the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties, Since the Complainant was well aware that she could seek any remedy or relief only against them. Only by an afterthought this Opposite Party has been wrongfully roped into the Complaint.   This Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          The case of the Complainant is that her husband K.Saravanamurthy had an account with the 1^st Opposite Party in account No.0166000000844 and a gold  debit card having No.4214 2505 0301 9487  to the said  K.Saravanamurthy in respect of the above account through the 2^nd Opposite Party at the instance of the 1^st Opposite Party and the said  card granted with certain benefit  feature to the card holder that the accidental death coverage by Air/Road sum assured was Rs.5,00,000/- and the said card holder was met with road accident on 17.07.2009 and died at the spot and in respect of the accident a Complaint was registered  at E2 - Royapettah Police Station in Crime No.471/2009  and said copy of FIR is marked as Ex.A3  and the copy of death certificate is marked as Ex.A4 and the Complainant was  the nominee of the deceased and hence she made claim to the 1^st Opposite Party and  he failed to process the same and therefore after issuing Ex.A10 legal notice to the Opposite Parties and the same was acknowledged under Ex.A11  and even after that the claim was not paid to the Complainant and therefore  she had filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the claim amount.

          6. The case of the Opposite Parties are that the deceased was not died in the accident and his death was only mysterious circumstances as per Ex.A3 FIR and the Complainant has not proved that she is the wife of deceased and also her husband was died only due to the accident and therefore the Complainant is not entitled and to maintain the Complaint against the Opposite Parties and therefore they pray to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. Ex.A2 is the copy of the Gold Debit Card issued to the K.Saravanamurthy for easy shop. Ex.A9, Ration Card is the proof to show that she is the wife of deceased K.Saravanamurthy and therefore, we accept that the Complainant is the wife of the  deceased K.Saravanamurthy.

          8. However, the Complainant has not filed any proof to accept that she was nominated by her husband to make claim in respect of his Gold Debit Card in the event of his death. Ex.A4 death certificate and Ex.A5 Post Mortem Certificate proves the death of the Complainant husband. Further, Ex.A3 copy of the FIR filed by the Complainant to prove that her husband was died in the accident. Excepting this document no other document filed by her to prove that the deceased was died in the road accident. In the FIR, it has been stated that on 16.07.2009 at about 11.45 p.m during night hour’s two persons by name Umesh and Thuravi informed the Complainant that her husband met with an accident and he was admitted in the Royapettah Hospital and when she went to the hospital, she found that her husband was dead. The contents of FIR itself are not sufficient to prove the accident. There is no information in the FIR that how the accident was took place. Apart from this no other documents have been filed to prove the accident. Normally, when a person who met with an accident admitted in the hospital, the doctors would record about the accident in the Accident Register. No, such document was obtained and filed in the case.

9. Further Ex.A5 Post Mortem reveals the injuries that an extensive contusion over dorsal aspect of right foot, bone deep laceration  on front of middle third of right leg and right heel and laceration over left Temporal Region of scalp. The Post Mortem gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.

10. According to Post Mortem Certificate the injuries were found only on the head and right leg and no other injuries were found in any of the part of the body of the deceased. The FIR itself registered under section 174/CRPC for suspicious death. If the deceased met with an accident he would have sustained injuries all over his body. The Complainant has not proved that her husband was died due to road accident. According to her she is eligible for claim Gold Debit Card Insurance Cover, only if her husband died in Air/Road Accident. Since the Complainant has not proved that her husband was died due to accident, the Opposite Parties have not expected to honour the claim made by the Complainant.

11. The Complainant filed the copy of Ex.A6 claim statement. However, the Opposite Parties would contend that no claim was made to them. In ExA6 there is an endorsement that the claim statement was received at HDFC Parrys Corner Bank. The 1^st Opposite Party is only at Parrys Corner. Hence the Complainant made claim to the 1^st Opposite Party is accepted.  Even though she made claim, she had not proved that her husband was died due to accident and hence she is not entitled for claim, as per her husband Gold Debit Card and therefore considering the circumstances of the case, we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 03^rd day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party for

                                                 Issuance of Easy Shop Gold Debit Card

 

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Copy of the Gold Debit Card

 

Ex.A3 dated 17.07.2009                   Copy of the FIR

 

Ex.A4 dated 14.08.2009                   Copy of the Death Certificate

 

Ex.A5 dated 21.09.2009                   Copy of the Post Mortem Certificate

 

Ex.A6 dated 26.08.2010                   Copy of the claimant statement submitted before

                                                     Opposite Parties

 

Ex.A7 dated 25.08.2010                     Copy of the Indemnity Bond

 

Ex.A8 dated NIL                       Copy of the Affidavit

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                       Copy of the Ration Card and Driving License

 

Ex.A10 dated 24.10.2011                    Copy of the Legal Notice

 

Ex.A11 dated NIL                                Copy of the Acknowledgement card       

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

                                  ……. NIL ……..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT