DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 309 of 23.09-2022

Decided on : 22-05-2024

Pawan Kumar aged about 57 years S/o Banarsi Dass R/o # 167, Ward No.15, Gaushala Road Near Geeta Bhawan, Maur Mandi-151509.

........Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Centrum House Vidyan, Agri Marg CST Road Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400055, through its Authorized Person/Manager/Incharge.

    

2. Bajaj Finserv Ltd. (Bajaj Finance Ltd.), Ground Floor, Rori Road Near ICICI Bank, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda-151302, through its Incharge/Authorized Person/Manager

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Smt. Priti Malhotra, President

Smt. Sharda Attri, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh.Vinod Garg for OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.

ORDER

Priti Malhotra, President

1. The complainant Pawan Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the son (Lalit Kumar) of the complainant took the loan from opposite party No.2 vide loan account No.25CFRPGN463622, it disbursed loan amount of Rs.2,99,000/- on 16.12.2020. Opposite party No.2 purchased mandatory insurance of loanee i.e. Lalit Kumar from opposite party No.1 in the name of Lalit Kumar under its HDFC Life Group Term Insurance Plan vide insurance policy bearing No.IF000120, scheme member code: SF97137732 w.e.f. 16.12.2020 to 15.12.2021 and charged the premium of Rs.6,000/- on the pretext that the same is necessary for loan account holders. Original insurance and its terms and conditions is still lying with opposite parties that they neither supplied to the complainant or his son. The complainant is the nominee and legal heir in the insurance certificate issued by opposite parties to the complainant.

3. It is alleged that opposite parties purchased and issued the insurance with the assurance that this insurance is mandatory as in case of any mis-happening with any borrower, the balance loan will be settled by the insurance company and no EMI needs to be paid by the legal heirs of the deceased borrower and also insured the deceased Lalit Kumar under Life Cover for Sum Insured of Rs.3,54,090/- with opposite party No.l.

4. It is further alleged that on 6.9.2021, the son of the complainant died in a Motor Vehicular Accident and in this regard, the complainant intimated opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 did not listen and even not supply the details of the insurance with opposite party No.1 and other any insurance company in October 2021 at the time of submission of papers in October 2021. Opposite party No.2 did not disclose that Lalit Kumar borrower was insured with opposite party No.1.

5. It is further alleged that on 2.5.2022, the complainant took the statement of account and came to know that Rs.6000/- was deducted from the account of Lalit Kumar for insurance on 16.12.2020. Thereafter the complainant got sent legal notice through his counsel on 3.5.2022 in this regard, then opposite party No.2 provided the copy of insurance certificate of opposite party No.1 on 11.5.2022 on e-mail and hard copy to another son of the complainant Loveleen Jindal.

6. It is further alleged that the complainant sent regd. letter dated 13.5.2022 and applied with opposite party No.1 for the death claim of his son Lalit Kumar alongwith Adhaar Card and Pan Card of the deceased Lalit Kumar and supplied the attested copies of FIR, postmortem report and death certificate etc. to opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant sent regd. letter dated 28.06.2022 to opposite parties, but opposite party No.1 refused to receive the same. The complainant many times visited opposite parties at Talwandi Sabo, but till date, they neither replied nor settled the loan account nor released any claim of the death of the son of the complainant.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to pay the death claim amount of Rs.3,54,090/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. for non settling the loan account of deceased w.e.f. 6.9.2021 and to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony, pains and Rs.50,000/- as litigaion expenses.

7. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it on 2.12.20222. Later on, vide order dated 25.10.2023 of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed in R.P No.43 of 2023 allowed opposite party No.1 to join the proceedings pending before District Commission and to address oral arguments only.

8. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

9. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.9.2022 (Ex.C1), and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C14) and closed the evidence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the file carefully.

11. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint as detailed above.

12. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 as it issued only insurance policy against premium of Rs.6000/-. The complainant has not supplied the documents for the disbursement of his claim. Whenever he will lodge the claim, opposite party No.1 is ready to settle the same.

13. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

14. Admitted facts are that the son of the complainant Lalit Kumar took the loan of Rs.2,99,000/- from opposite party No.2 on 16.12.2020. Opposite party No.2 purchased insurance of loanee i.e. Lalit Kumar from opposite party No.1 under its 'HDFC Life Group Term Insurance Plan' vide insurance policy bearing No.IF000120, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3). The son of the complainant died in a Motor Vehicular Accident. FIR, (Ex.C10) and death certificate, (Ex.C12) prove this fact.

15. As per complainant, after the death of the son of the complainant, the complainant intimated opposite party No.2 regarding the death of his son and lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 and supplied it all the documents as required for disbursement of his claim, but opposite party No.1 did not settle his claim till date. The policy, (Ex.C2) proves that the complainant is nominee of his son in this policy and his share in this policy is 100 percent (Sum insured). It has been observed that the present complaint was filed on 23.9.2022 and till date opposite party No.1 did not take any efforts to get the claim of the complainant processed to show its bonafide, which shows that opposite party No.1 is avoiding the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on its part.

16. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.1 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per its terms and conditions.

17. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

18. In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite party No.1 will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    22-05-2024 (Priti Malhotra)

    President

     

    (Sharda Attri)

    Member