Complaint Filed on:21.04.2021 |
Disposed on:24.02.2022 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
DATED 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT:- SRI.K.S.BILAGI | : | PRESIDENT |
SMT.RENUKADEVI DESHPANDE | : | MEMBER |
Complainant/s | V/s | Opposite party/s |
Smt.Sunandhamma, W/o late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 47 years, R/at Sudharshan Nilaya, 3rd Cross, Ayappa Temple Road, Viveknagar, KGF-563122, Kolar District, Karnataka. Sri V.B.Shivakumar, Adv. | | 1. The Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Co.Ltd., 11th Floor, Lodha Excetus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Morg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011, represented by its Manager. 2. The Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Co.Ltd., 9, 4th Floor, E.Square Centre, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560001, represented by its Manager. Sri Jai.M.Patil, Adv. |
ORDER
SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 against the OPs for the following reliefs:-
(a) Directing the OP Nos.1 and 2 jointly pay the claim amount of Rs.3,64,908/-.
(b) Directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for rejection of the claim without reason.
(c) Award interest at 24% p.a. annum on the amounts from the date of complaint till actual realization of the amount.
(d) Costs of the complainant.
2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-
Late Ramakrishna Reddy husband of the complainant took life annuity policy bearing No.21564931 on 13.06.2019 from the OPs and invested Rs.3,64,908/-. As per the policy terms and conditions, OPs credited monthly annuity of Rs.2,732.42 to the savings bank account. Husband of the complainant expired on 11.02.2020 who was admitted for Manipal Hospital at HAL Road.
3. The complainant had submitted claim petition on 30.07.2020 with OP No.2 with relevant documents. Even though, branch manager Sushil Kumar assured the complainant that claim amount of Rs.3,64,980/- will be credited to the nominee’s bank account. The OPs are repudiated the claim. This repudiation is not proper and amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.
4. After receipt of notice, the OPs appear and file version. The OPs contend that complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts against them. This complaint is filed by the complainant in abuse of process of law. The contractual relationship between parties does not come within the purview of C.p.Act.
5. The OPs admit that late Ramakrishna Reddy took annuity policy bearing NO.21564931 who was entitled monthly annuity payment of Rs.2,732.42 from 30.06.2019. It is further case of the complainant that in case of death of policy holder, nominee is not entitled to any amount. Even though insured died on 11.02.2020, the complainant approached the OPs only on 30.07.2020. As per the terms and conditions, the OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. They request to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant files her affidavit evidence and relies on documents. The affidavit evidence of Deputy Manager has been filed with two documents on behalf of OPs. Heard the arguments by advocate for complainant only. Argument of OPs was taken as nil.
7. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-
- Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
- What order?
- Our answers to the above points are as under:
Point Nos.1 and 2: In the negative
Point No.3: As per final orders
REASONS
- Point Nos.1 and 2: The complainant relies on her affidavit and documents. The affidavit and documents clearly indicate that policy holder Ramakrishna Reddy husband of the complainant died on 11.02.2020. The Ramarksihna Reddy had taken a policy for sum of Rs.3,64,980/- for period from 13.06.2019 to 12.06.2020. According to this policy, the plan option was life annuity and annuity amount payable per month was Rs.2,732.42. The terms and conditions enumerated in the policy are not in dispute.
- We carefully perused the benefits available in this policy. Even though, annuity option is life annuity. But, there was no death benefit attached to the policy. These terms and conditions are binding on the husband of the complainant and OPs and after death of Ramakrishna Reddy, these conditions also bind the complainant. The complainant has shown as nominee. When there is a clause in the terms and conditions of policy that in case of death, no benefit is provided. The terms and conditions of policy are binding on both the sides. Ex.R.1 is the copy of the policy which has been already referred while referring the documents of the complainant. Document No.2 is the annuity proposal form, which nullifies the contention of the complainant. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any amount from the OPs. There is no deficiency of service.
- Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. We proceed to pass the following
O R D E R
- The complaint is dismissed.
- No costs.
- Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents with extra pleadings to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24th day of February, 2022)
(Renukadevi Deshpande) MEMBER | (K.S.BILAGI) PRESIDENT |
Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-
1. | Copy of policy bearing No.21564931 |
2. | Copy of bank statement |
3. | Original Customer acknowledgement of individual death claim form |
4. | Copy of the E-mail correspondence dated 17.11.2020 |
5. | Copy of the E-mail correspondence dated 18.11.2020 |
6. | Copy of the E-mail correspondence dated 19.11.2020 |
7. | Copy of the E-mail correspondence dated 29.11.2020 |
8. | Copy of legal notice dated 19.01.2021, postal receipt and acknowledgement |
9. | Death certificate of Ramakrishna Reddy |
Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-
1. | Ex.R.1. – Copy of policy dated 15th June, 2019 |
2. | Ex.R.2 – Copy of proposal form |
(Renukadevi Deshpande) MEMBER | (K.S.BILAGI) PRESIDENT |
