JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

                The son of the complainant/petitioner namely Deepak Kumar applied to respondent no.2 HDFC Bank for issue of a debit card while opening an account with the said bank.  The debit card was sent to him alongwith a forwarding letter.  One of the benefits available to the debit card holder was a personal accident insurance cover.  The insurance cover was to be provided by respondent no.1 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. which is stated to be a group company of HDFC Bank.  The debit card holder having died in an accident, a claim for payment of the accidental cover benefit was lodged by the complainant.   The claim having not been paid, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The bank remained ex-parte before the District Forum but the insurer contested the complaint.  It was stated in the written version filed by the insurer that the benefit of the insurance cover was available only in the event of the debit card holder having used it at least once in three months before his death.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 16.07.2014, directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,00/- to the complainant.  Both the respondents were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Since the complainant was also dissatisfied with the said order, a separate appeal was preferred by him.

5.      Vide impugned order date 02.06.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the insurer and dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.  Being aggrieved, she is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.      The case of the respondents has been that the term requiring use of the debit card holder at least once in three months before the death of the debit card holder formed part of the usage guide which the bank had sent to the card holder alongwith the debit card.  The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the usage guide was not sent to the debit card holder and had that been sent, the debit card holder would have used the debit card in order to maintain the availability of the insurance cover in the event of his death.

7.      I have perused the complaint.  There is no specific averment in the complaint that the usage guide was not enclosed to the forwarding letter whereby the debit card guide was sent, though it has been alleged that the terms and conditions, subject to which the insurance cover was available, were not brought to the knowledge of the complainant.  In the absence of a specific averment denying the receipt of the usage guide by the debit card holder, the plea taken during the course of arguments cannot be accepted.  More importantly, it is not in dispute that the forwarding letter was duly received by the debit card holder alongwith the debit card.  The forwarding letter expressly refers to the usage guide and the debit card holder was requested, in the forwarding letter, to spare time to go through the said usage guide.  Had the debit card holder not received the usage guide despite the instructions given in the forwarding letter, he, in the ordinary course of human conduct, would have written to the bank stating therein that the usage guide had not been sent to him.  That having not been done, the inevitable presumption would be that the usage guide was duly received by him.

8.      The case of the respondent has been that the terms and conditions subject to which accidental cover was to be made available were duly incorporated in the usage guide.  The complainant having withheld the usage guide from the District Forum, it can be safely presumed that had the said usage guide been produced, it would have supported the case of the respondents in this regard.  The complainant therefore, did not disclose a material fact that the usage guide had been received by the deceased debit card holder from the bank.  Therefore, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the State Commission that the terms and conditions subject to which the accident cover could be available were duly known to the debit card holder.  Admittedly, he did not use the debit card even once in three months before his death.  Therefore, the condition subject to which the accident cover could be available, did not stand fulfilled.  The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.