DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 187 of 10-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 15-03-2010 <br /> <br /> Pushpa Rani aged about 50 years widow of Amrit Lal, R/o H. No. 33314, Street No. 8, Partap Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> ..... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Ground Floor, 3038-A Dalip Singh Walia Complex, Guru Kashi Marg, National Highway No. 15, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), Phase I, Model Town, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 1. <br /> Sh. H S Aklia, counsel for opposite party No. 2.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that her husband applied for a housing loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- with opposite party No. 2. At the time of sanction of loan, opposite party No. 2 imposed condition to take the Insurance policy of Rs. 3,00,000/-. On the asking of opposite party No. 2, her husband signed the blank proposal form of opposite party No. 1 who is sister concern of opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 issued a policy No. 11116634 w.e.f. 12-06-2007 in favour of deceased. Sh. Amrit Lal Mittal was serving as ALM with P.S.E.B. City Sub Division, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda. He died while he was doing his duty on 15-06-2008. The complainant being nominee of policy holder filed the claim but opposite party No. 1 rejected her claim on the ground that policy holder did not disclose true occupation. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to opposite parties to pay the entire claim amount alongwith bonus, interest and other benefits including accidental benefits besides compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs. Opposite party No. 2 be also directed to return original sale deed and also supply No due certificate etc.,<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply and admitted to the extent that deceased Amrit Lal Mittal was serving as Assistant Line Man with P.S.E.B. and his nature of work was maintenance of PSEB lines as per particulars submitted alongwith claim form. However, deceased did not disclose this vital information in the proposal form at the time of applying for Insurance policy and rather gave false particulars and details regarding his occupation. Amrit Lal Mittal died on 15-06-2008. When claim papers were supplied to the replying opposite party, it came to know the exact work of the deceased and nature thereof. It has been admitted that claim of the complainant has been repudiated but it has been denied that repudiation is against the law.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply and submitted that opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 are two different companies having distinct legal entities in the eyes of law. It has been pleaded that there was no condition of the Insurance policy with the loan amount nor such condition is mentioned in any documents executed by the complainant. It has been admitted that original sale deed etc. are still in the custody of opposite party No. 2 and it has no dispute with the complainant as the loan amount has already been received by it.<br /> 4. Parties have led evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.<br /> 6. The complainant, widow of deceased Amrit Lal claimed Insurance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from opposite party No. 2 from whom the deceased has taken Insurance Cover vide policy Ex. C-2, but the opposite party No. 2 repudiated her claim on the ground that at the time of taking policy, the deceased has concealed material facts regarding his occupation which was of hazardous nature. The proposal form Ex. R-4 which was filled at the time of issuance of policy to the deceased is no doubt signed by deceased Amrit Lal but it was filled by agent/official of opposite party No. 1. <br /> 7. Section 'D' i.e. Personal and family history of life to be assured of proposal form vide Ex. R-4 page 6, wherein in the column of occupation it is written as a “ Self employed/business” In the column of designation deceased has mentioned as “Proprietor”. In the column of name of the present employer, it has been filled City Bus (infact Sub) division, Sirki Bazar, Bathinda”. Nature of work has been mentioned as “Administrative work” and in the next column regarding detail of occupation it has been mentioned “Non Hazardous work”. In the next column regarding – Industry to which your company or business belongs, is filled “Contractor”.<br /> 8. From the careful perusal of this section, it appears that for selling this Insurance policy, the agent/officials of opposite party No. 1 themselves have filled this column according to their own convenience otherwise it is not presumable that a person will tell a lie/furnish wrong information to the Insurance Company only for the purpose of taking Insurance cover. Otherwise also, the deceased was a government employee and a number of Insurance Companies have covered employees under Group Insurance Schemes. The deceased was also having an Insurance cover by LIC (Life Insurance Corporation).<br /> 9. The contention raised by the complainant that opposite party No. 2 has compelled the deceased to obtain this Insurance cover only to doubly secure his loan amount, appears genuine as an employee who has obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- for purchase of house and he had to pay monthly installment of Rs. 4,176/- vide Ex. C-16, out of his home carrying salary of Rs. 14,985/- as per Ex. C-26, cannot afford to take another Insurance Policy.<br /> 10. Now the question arises for determination is as to why that person will go to the Insurance company for taking insurance cover of Rs. 3,00,000/- for which he has to pay another premium of Rs. 2498/- vide Ex. R-3 and that too from a company which is sister concern of company from which he has taken housing loan. Since opposite party No. 1 has received premium and after submitting proposal form on 11-05-2007 , it appears from the perusal of naked eye that figure of '5' has been changed into '6'. The policy has been issued on 30-06-2007 vide Ex. R-2. During this intervening period i.e. filling up of proposal form and issuance of Insurance policy, it was the duty of opposite party No. 1 to check and verify the contents filled in proposal form but no such effort has been made by opposite party No. 1. As per the Insurance regulations, it is the duty of the Insurer to furnish the terms and conditions of the policy to the insured, free of charge, within 30 days of acceptance of proposal and a copy of proposal form. No such compliance has been made by opposite party No. 1.<br /> 11. From the perusal of literature produced by opposite party No. 1, it is provided that opposite party No. 1 is a sister concern/associate company of opposite party No. 2. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt that deceased was compelled by opposite party No. 2 to take this Insurance cover before sanction of housing loan.<br /> 12. The opposite party No. 1 has also raised contention in para No. 18 of written reply on merits that “Had this information about exact occupation/work of deceased been provided to the company at the time of applying for Insurance policy, the replying opposite party would not have issued the policy in question”. The opposite party No. 1 has not produced any rules and regulations of the policy that if any person engaged in any such type of hazardous work, he is not entitled for Insurance cover nor any such condition has been mentioned in the proposal form. Only the details of hazardous work has been asked for. It may be possible/presumed that Insurance company may charge some extra premium from the persons who are engaged in such type of hazardous work. Therefore, this contention of opposite party No. 1 is not tenable.<br /> 13. Opposite party No. 2 has admitted in its written reply that entire loan amount has been deposited by the complainant and has alleged that the complainant was advised to receive the documents which are lying with them against receipt after submitting the relevant affidavits of all the legal heirs, but she herself has not collected the same. This contention raised by opposite party No. 2 is also not tenable under the law of natural justice because as and when it has received the entire loan amount, it was it's duty to send all the original documents i.e. original sale deed, no due certificate, complete account statement with details of interest and principal amount separately, the payment received by opposite party No. 2 from the complainant and LIC, blank signed post dated cheques of husband of the complainant, through registered post at her residential address. There is no need of any authority letter/affidavit of all the legal heirs of the deceased because the opposite party No. 2 has to return the documents only and not to disburse any monetary benefit to the complainant.<br /> 14. In view of what has been discussed above, no doubt there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with following directions to the opposite parties :-<br /> i) Opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- being sum insured to the complainant.<br /> ii) Opposite party No. 2 will handover all the documents mentioned in para No. 13 of this order to the complainant.<br /> iii) Both the opposite parties will pay Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant. <br /> iv) Both the opposite parties will pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the complainant jointly and severally. <br /> The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-03-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) *ik Member<br />