Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/79/2019

Amit Singhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Bansal

06 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2019.

Date of instt.28.02.2019.

Date of Decision:06.12.2019.

 

Amit Singla, aged about 37 years s/o late Shri Sat Parkash Singla, r/o H.No.519/2, Ward No.21, Subhash Gali, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. HDFC Limited, IInd Floor, Gokul Tower, Panjagutta Main Road, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-500082, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. HDFC Limited, SCO No.65, 1^st Floor, near Cygnus Hospital, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its Manager.
3. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                   

Present:     Shri Amit Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.             

Shri Bhaskar Bhalla, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 &         2.

Shri Atul Mittal, Advocate for the opposite party No.3.           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Amit Singla against HDFC Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that in the month of November 2016, complainant’s father late Shri Sat Parkash Singla applied for home loan/enquiry loan of his house No.519/2, Ward No.21, Subhash Gali, Railway Road, Kurukshetra to the OP No.2 and accordingly, loan agreement dated 11.07.2016 was executed in the month of July 2016 and loan amount of Rs.11,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the borrower, and for this purpose, loan account bearing No.620842526 was opened with OP No.2. After sanctioning the loan, the OPs No.1 & 2 got his father insured from the OP No.3 vide policy No.2918201446774900000 valid from 18.7.2016 to 17.7.2021 for a sum assured of Rs.11,50,000/- and separate premium amount of Rs.1574/- per month was being given by the borrower to the OP No.3 without any default. At the time of issuance of insurance policy, it was told by the officials of OPs that now whole of the loan amount has been insured under the policy and in case of death of the borrower i.e. his father, the amount deposited before the death will be returned to nominee i.e. complainant and remaining loan amount will be paid by the OP No.3 to the OPs No.1 & 2. In August 2018, his father suffered from heart attack (stroke) and he was got admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, where he was treated and remained admitted as indoor patient from 07.8.2018 to 10.08.2018, but could not survive and ultimately died on 15.8.2018. After the death of his father, he being nominee, approached the OPs for claiming the insured amount of Rs.11,50,000/- by producing all the relevant documents and officials of OPs assured that after completing the necessary formalities, the claim will be passed, but no action was taken, rather the OPs pressurized him to deposit the installments of loan amount and he continued depositing the loan installments till today. He was surprised to receive email from the OP No.3 on 30.1.2019, whereby, his claim was repudiated with the remarks “we regret to inform you that the claim for critical illness does not make the requirements of its eligibility as per policy terms and conditions. Since the claim is not admissible and losses not payable and we are constrained to close the claim as no claim in our record”. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in services. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that it has not been disclosed in the present complaint that the complainant alongwith his mother and deceased father had availed 02 more loans and complete details are as under:-

S.No.	Loan Account No.	Loan amount	Borrower/Co-borrower	Current status
1	620842526	11,50,000	Sat Parkash (B) Amit Singla (CB) Veena Singla (CB)	Pre-paid
2	620564121	20,00,000	Sat Parkash (B) Amit Singla (CB) Veena Singla (CB)	Regular
3	631316591	22,00,000	Veena Singla (B) Amit Singla (CB) Sat Parkash (CB)	Regular

                The father of the complainant passed away on 15.8.2018 and after receiving intimation about his death from the co-borrowers on 19.9.2018, a prepayment sheet was provided to the complainant that an amount of Rs.11,84,000/- was payable to close the loan account out of which Rs.11,77,991/- was loan Principal as on 01.9.2019 and Rs.6017/- was interest for 18 days of September 2018. The complainant apparently lodged insurance claim with OP No.3, which was initially repudiated. Being the co-borrower, liability of the complainant to repay the loan was independent of his dispute with the insurance company. Accordingly, the OPs No.1 & 2 continued to charge EMIs and the complainant continued to pay as per his obligations under the aforesaid loan agreement. During the pendency of the complaint, the OP No.3 has now admitted the claim of the complainant and it is only on 02.4.2019, it released amount of Rs.11,77,991/-, which was actually due on 01.9.2018. The net effect of the delay on the part of the OP No.3 is that from September 2018 to March 2019, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,06,344/- towards 07 EMIs and its break-up is Rs.35,585/- (Principal) and Rs.70,759/- (interest). The OPs No.1 & 2 being in receipt excess amount of Rs.35253/- (principal) adjust the same in the other two loan accounts with clear understanding with the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are entitled to retain the interest component of Rs.70,759/- and the grievance of the complainant, if any, is towards the OP No.3, which delayed the processing of the insurance claim. The fact remains that for 07 months, 01.9.2018 to 02.4.2019, the OPs No.1 & 2 remained entitled to charge interest as per loan agreement and the complainant continued to use the loan. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OPs No.1 & 2.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is stated that the claim of the complainant has already been settled in as much as the OP No.3 paid a total sum of Rs.11,77,991/- in favour of HDFC Ltd. Loan Account Nos.621039028 & 620842526, as per the policy terms & conditions. The details of payment is given below:

Cheque in Fav of	HDFC Ltd Loan AC-621039028 620842526- Major Medical Illness
Bank A/C No.(Account No. of the Payee)	00600350000168
Cheque/NEFT Number	3000526646
Payment Mode	NEFT
Cheque Amount	1177991
Cheque Date	01/04/2019
IFSC Code	HDFC0000060

 

                It is pertinent to mention here that the claim paid by the OP No.3 is on the basis of outstanding loan amount, as confirmed by the Financer i.e. HDFC Limited. Further, the payment made by the OP No.3 was as per the policy condition, as per the policy schedule the basis of sum insured opted by the insured was on reducing basis, which mentioned that the payment which is to be done against the Major Medical Illness will be on the basis of outstanding loan amount as confirmed by the Financial Institution. After perusing the claim documents, it was found that the death of insured happened due to heart attack which is covered under the coverage of Major Medical Illness and thus, the claim was proceeded under the coverage of Major Medical Illness and against which the claim of Rs.11,77,991/- is paid in favour of HDFC Ltd. Loan Account 621039028 & 620842526, as per the policy terms & conditions. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.3. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same against the OP No.3.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-21 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that complainant’s father late Shri Sat Parkash Singla took a home loan bearing No.620842526 amounting Rs.11,50,000/- from the OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 also got his father insured from the OP No.3 valid from 18.7.2016 to 17.7.2021 for a sum assured of Rs.11,50,000/- with the assurance that in case of death of the father of complainant, the amount deposited before the death, will be returned to nominee i.e. complainant and remaining loan amount will be paid by the OP No.3 to the OPs No.1 & 2. In this regard, a separate premium amount of Rs.1574/- per month was being given by the borrower to the OP No.3 without any default. In August 2018, his father suffered from heart attack (stroke) and got admitted in Fortis Hospital, Mohali, where he was treated and remained admitted as indoor patient from 07.8.2018 to 10.08.2018 and intimation in this regard was given to the OP No.3 on the same day i.e. on 07.8.2018. Father of the complainant could not survive and ultimately died on 15.8.2018. After the death of his father, the complainant being nominee, approached the OPs for claiming the insured amount of Rs.11,50,000/- by producing all the relevant documents, but no action was taken, rather the OPs pressurized him to deposit the installments of loan amount and he continued depositing the loan installments till today. He further argued that the OP No.3 illegally repudiated the claim through email on 30.1.2019. By not paying his genuine claim, the OPs are deficient in services.

                Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has also reiterated all the contents mentioned in the reply. He argued that it has not been disclosed in the present complaint that the complainant alongwith his mother and deceased father had availed 02 more loan accounts. After receiving intimation about death of complainant’s father, a prepayment sheet was provided to the complainant that an amount of Rs.11,84,000/- (Rs.11,77,991/- Principal + Rs.6017/- interest for 18 days). Thereafter, the complainant lodged insurance claim with OP No.3, which was initially repudiated and the complainant continued to pay as per his obligations under the aforesaid loan agreement.

                During the pendency of the complaint, the OP No.3 has now admitted the claim of the complainant and released Rs.11,77,991/-, which was actually due on 01.9.2018. The net effect of the delay on the part of the OP No.3 is that from September 2018 to March 2019, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,06,344/- towards 07 EMIs and its break-up is Rs.35,585/- (Principal) and Rs.70,759/- (interest). He further argued that the OPs No.1 & 2 being in receipt excess amount of Rs.35253/- (principal) adjust the same in the other two loan accounts of the complainant. The OP remained entitled to charge interest for 7 months i.e. from 01.9.2018 to 02.4.2019, as per loan agreement as the complainant continued to use the loan. The grievance of the complainant, if any, is towards the OP No.3, which delayed the processing of the insurance claim, so there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and the present complaint may be dismissed against them with special costs.

                The learned counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that after perusing the claim documents, it was found that the death of insured happened due to heart attack, which covered under the coverage of Major Medical Illness, against which, the claim of Rs.11,77,991/- was paid in favour of HDFC Ltd. Loan Account 621039028 & 620842526, as per the policy terms & conditions, so there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.3.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is found that Shri Sat Parkash (complainant’s father) availed 03 loans from the OPs No.1 & 2 bearing loan account Nos. 620842526, 620564121 and 631316591 for an amount of Rs.11,50,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- & Rs.20,00,000/- ‘being nominees Amit Singla (complainant) & Veena Singla vide Home Equity Loan Agreement Ex.R-1, Ex.R-12 and Ex.R-17 respectively. The OPs No.1 & 2 got insured the father of complainant from the OP No.3 vide policy No.2918 2014 4677 4900 000 valid from 18.7.2016 to 17.7.2021 for a sum assured of Rs.11,50,000/- and the complainant being nominee in that policy. The father of the complainant was paying premium amounting Rs.15,192/- (13618+1574) to the OP No.3 for that policy regularly. The father of the complainant was died on 15.8.2018 vide Death Certificate Ex.C-10. From letter dated 30.1.2019 Ex.C-9, it is clear that initially the OP No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainant, but in its reply, the OP No.3 admitted that as per the policy terms & conditions, the claim of Rs.11,77,991/- has been released on 01.4.2019 in favour of HDFC Ltd. Loan Account 621039028 & 620842526. This fact of releasing an amount of Rs.11,77,991/- has not been denied by the complainant, but in this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that since there was delay on the part of the OP No.3 in releasing the claim amount, therefore, the OP No.3 was also liable to pay the premium amount from September 2018 to March 2019.

                From the perusal of case file, we found that father of the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 07.8.2018 and the OP No.3 has duly received the intimation in this regard, as is evident from the repudiation letter Ex.C-9, and after receiving the intimation in this regard, the OP No.3 was legally bound to pay the claim amount as per terms & conditions of the policy to the complainant from September 2018 i.e. after the death of father of the complainant on 15.8.2018. But the OP No.3 initially repudiated the claim of the complainant, but thereafter the OP No.3 admitted his claim and released the amount of Rs.11,77,991/- in April 2019, due to which, the OPs No.1 & 2 continued to charge premium amount for 7 months i.e. from September 2018 to March 2019 from the complainant, which was paid by him regularly. Since the OP No.3 took time from September 2018 to March 2019 in releasing the payment of the complainant, therefore, the OP No.3 ‘being deficient one, is liable to pay the said amount of premium to the complainant, which was received by the OPs No.1 & 2 from September 2018 to March 2019. However, at the time of arguments, the complainant produced document Mark-A & Mark-B, wherein, in Mark-B, the OP No.3 charged Rs.15192/- (13618+1574) from the account of father of the complainant as premium amount in the month of August 2018. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the OP No.3 admitted in the repudiation letter about receiving the intimation of claim on 07.8.2018, therefore, the OP No.3 is also liable to pay the premium amount amounting Rs.15192/- for the month of August 2018 also and we found force in this contention of the complainant. From the document Ex.R-4, it is clear that the OPs No.1 & 2 received excess amount of Rs.35,253/- and adjusted the same in the account of complainant on 13.4.2019. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.3 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant. Hence, the OP No.3 is legally bound to pay the premium amount of 8 months to the complainant as per details given below:-

        Rs.15192 (13618+1574) x 8 months =    Rs.1,21,536/-

                                                              -         Rs.35,253/-

•  

                                                Total               =  Rs.86,283/-

         

                   Since there is no specific allegations against the OPs No.1 & 2 and even it has no role to play in the dispute, therefore, complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 stands rejected.

 

8.             In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OPs No.1 & 2 and allow the same against the OP No.3 and direct the OP No.3 in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.86,283/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% from the date of filing the present complaint, till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                The OP No.3 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:06.12.2019.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.