District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/153/2017
(Date of Filing:-20.07.2017)
- Smt. Bithika Biswas residing at
403, Ma Tara Apartment, 3/164/A/1/40, Sarat Sarani
P.O. Morepukur, P.S. Rishra, Dist. Hooghly,
Pin:- 712250
Versus
- IDBI BankLtd., Serampore Branch,
74, R.B. Sarani near Bottala More, P.O. P.S. Serampore,Dist. Hooghly Pin:- 712201
- IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Trade View,
Oasis Complex, Kamala City, P.B. Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai,
Pin:- 400 013.
………….Opposite Parties
Before:-
MR. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
MRS. BABITA CHOUDHURY, MEMBER
-
-
Final Order/Judgment
DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant consumer case filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 originates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of taking of a home loan from OP 1 by her husband (now deceased), entering into an agreement with OP 2 for opening a property insurance and loan insurance against the said loan, payment of corresponding premium for a certain period, abrupt refunding of the premium amount by OP 2 to a loan account which was allegedly not of the actual borrower and denial of death benefit against the said insurance policies to the Complainant by OP 2.
Brief facts of the case
To depict the case as presented in the complaint petition, after truncating the unnecessary details, the complainant’s husband, while he was alive, took a home loan of Rs.11,00,000/-from OP 1 with the loan A/C No. 1023675100000569 and entered into an agreement with OP 2 for initiating loan insurance and property insurance against the said loan, the premium of which reportedly was Rs.989/- per month.
However, the Complainant’s husband i.e. the actual borrower expired on 28.01.2017.
Before expiry, total premium paid to OP 2 Insurance Company, reportedly a sister concern of OP 1 Bank, against the insurance policies was to the extent of Rs.12,499/-.
But suddenly on 22.01.2015, OP 2 refunded the entire amount of Rs.12,499/- to a loan A/C bearing No.1023675100000578 which was allegedly not of the husband of the Complainant.
Equated monthly installments against the loan are claimed to have been paid regularly by the borrower prior to his death on 28.01.2017.
Now the Complainant expresses her grievances over the abrupt refund of twelve premiums on age proof ground, to some other A/C.
In response to the legal notice sent by the Complainant, OPs informed that both the accounts were in the name of Late Bidyasagar Biswas, the husband of the Complainant.
The Complainant claims that as her husband had a loan insurance account, the unpaid amount of the loan, after her husband’s demise should be ‘considered as death claim benefit’.
Now having faced hardship, the Complainant has filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties to provide death claim benefit/ waiving of the remaining loan.
Besides, the Complainant has also made prayers in his complaint petition to impose direction upon the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-for causing metal agony and harassment and pay further Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.
The complainant along with his petition has annexed copies of certain supporting documents viz. the legal notice dtd.15.06.2017, loan sanction letter dtd.08.03.2014 of the OP Bank, loan recovery certificate dtd.11.04.2016 for the period 2015-16,bank statements of the deceased borrower for the periods 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015, 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017,death certificate of the deceased borrower and communications received from the OP bank in response to the legal notice sent by the Complainant.
However, it appears from the records that due to repeated prayers for time the opportunity of filing evidence on affidavit by the Complainant was closed.
Brief note of arguments filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the Complaint petition.
However, the Complainant argues in her respective BNA that the requirement letters dtd.10.11.14 and 10.12.2014 and the refund intimation letter dtd.21.01.2015 claimed to have been dispatched by OP 2 were not properly served as the letters showed the address of the previous residence of the applicant i.e. the address prior to shifting to the newly purchased property against the loan taken from OP 1.
The Complainant draws attention to the issue that had there been any dispute with regard to age proof of the applicant, the issue could have been raised at the initiation process.
The Complainant further alleges that OP 2 intentionally refunded the premium to the loan A/C which did not belong to the deceased husband of the Complainant.
The OP Bank and the OP Insurance Company in the instant case are the service providers. Thus, the complainant is apparently a consumer in terms of the relevant provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Complainant and OP 1 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Now, whether there was any deficiency of service and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief will be discussed in the concluding part of this order as the issues are mutually interdependent.
Defence case:-
So far as the Opposite Parties are concerned, the instant case runs ex parte against OP 1 though written version and BNA have been filed by OP 1.
On the other hand, OP 2 has contested the case by filing written version and brief notes of argument. On prayer, the W/V filed by the OP 2 has been treated as evidence on affidavit.
OP 1 Bank in their written version has claimed that the complaint petition is not maintainable on several grounds. OP 1 has gone even to the extent of questioning the jurisdiction of this Commission in the matter of trial of this case. However, no non-maintainability petition has been filed by OP 1 Bank.
On the contrary, OP 1 simultaneously in para 21 of the written version contradicting themselves proceeds to place certain ‘facts’ before this Commission for arriving at a ‘judicious decision’ and also for ‘proper adjudication’ of the instant case by this Commission.
Thus, questions raised by OP 1 with regard to maintainability of the instant complaint petition do not deserve any discussion here.
However, in the written version, certain statements incorporated in the complaint petition are termed as matter of record but almost all the allegations levelled by the Complainant against the OP 1 Bank are denied and claimed to be false, fabricated, fictitious, frivolous, baseless, vague, speculative etc.,etc. It is asserted by OP 1 that OP 2 Insurance Company is not a sister concern of them and is a Company having a separate entity.
OP 1 at the very outset, rules out the insinuation that OP Insurance Company is a ‘sister concern’ of OP 1.
OP 1 firmly refuses to accept the Complainant’s claim of making repeated contacts with OP 1 as true and valid.
OP 1 states that on receipt of a letter dtd.21.03.2017 from the Complainant having the subject matter of settlement of death claim of her husband, they took up the matter with OP 2 Insurance Company and it came to their knowledge that to issue the policy in question, OP 2 repeatedly requested the applicant to submit the age proof but the same was allegedly neglected. Consequently, OP 2 cancelled the proposal and refunded the amount to the loan account number 1023675100000578 of the Complainant’s husband. The entire development is claimed to have been communicated to the complainant’s husband by a letter dtd.21.01.2015.
Finally, OP 1 states that the settlement of death claim of the husband of the Complainant is in no way related to the business affairs of OP 1 Bank. Having been involved in banking business, OP 1 only extended the loan facility to the Complainant’s husband which is yet to be recovered.
BNA filed by OP 1 is almost replica of the written version.
OP 2 in their written version claims that the Complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency on the OP 2’s part.
OP 2 further points out that the Complainant has failed to furnish any copy of the relevant policy bond before the Commission.
Apart from the above, OP 2 draws attention to the issue that the policyholder never approached to the Company when the premium amount was refunded on 21.01.2015. The Complainant i.e. the wife of the original policyholder only made her approach to the Company by way of legal notice two years after expiry of her husband.
OP 2 here relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another (2009) CPJ 75 (SC) in which it was held that: “Section 24A bars any Fora set up under the Act from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. The provision expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission, as the case may be, that the Complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen”.
OP 2 claims that the proposal form submitted by the Late husband of the Complainant was never accepted by the Insurance Company for lack of age proof and as a result of non-acceptance of the proposal the contract of insurance was never concluded between the applicant and the Insurance Company.
With reference to the above, OP 2 draws reference to the Judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Company of India v. Raja Vasireddy Komalvali Kamba & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1014 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. Mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or even mere preparation of the policy does not amount to acceptance. The contract of insurance is concluded on issue of policy.
OP 2 in this connection submits that the proposal of insurance of the applicant, the complainant’s husband in the instant case was never accepted due to non-availability of age proof. Accordingly, the refund of the first premium of Rs.12,499/- was made and an intimation in this regard is claimed to have been made to the applicant through a letter dtd.21.01.2015.
OP 2 further states that based on the information and declaration contained in the Member Enrolment Form and believing the same to be true and also upon receipt of the duly filled form on 15.09.2014, the process of issuing the policy in the name of the Complainant’s deceased husband was initiated. The OP 2 Company claims to have ensured that an independent third person had explained the contents of the proposal form to the deceased life assured.
A copy of the Member Enrolment Form has been annexed in this regard.
Allegedly, in spite of repeated reminders, the applicant failed to submit any age proof within the stipulated time. Resultantly the application was cancelled and the initial premium amount of Rs.12,499/- was refunded to the loan account no. 1023675100000569 provided by the applicant in the Member Enrolment Form.
Thus, in totality all the allegations raised by the Complainanthave been emphatically denied by OP 2.
OP 2 along with their written version has also annexed communications made to the deceased husband of the Complainant and the reply made to the legal notice.
In the BNA, OP 2 has incorporated the date wise series of events only and certain points of law involving the same issues pointed out in the written version.
Decision with reasons:-Materials on records are perused.
On 15.07.2024, the Complainant was asked to produce copies of loan agreement, Insurance policy documents if any, property insurance and loan insurance agreement and age proof of the deceased husband of the Complainant.
However apart from a photocopy of the adhar card showing date of birth, no other document as requisitioned could be filed. The Complainant has even failed to produce the copies of insurance policy bonds.
In the Adhar card the address is shown as 26/C/30 First Lane, Morepukur, Serampore, Hooghly, West Bengal 712250.
In the Member Enrolment Form the mailing address is shown as 26/B/31, Morepukur 1st Lane, P.O. Morepukur, Rishra, Hooghly, Pin:-712248
On the other hand,OP 1 Bank was asked to provide the conclusive evidence in support of their claim that A/C no. 1023675100000578 was in the name of the deceased husband of the Complainant and simultaneously OP 2 Insurance Company was asked to produce evidence of service of the so-called requirement letters and refund intimation letter.
But both the OPs have failed to produce the documents as asked for.
On examination of the copy of the Member Enrolment Form signed by the applicant himself, it is found in the front page that loan A/C is shown as 1023675100000569 and LIP A/C is shown as 1023675100000578 whereas in the back page the annual premium amount is shown as 12,499/- and account number is shown as 1023675100000578 for direct debit.
So, it is apparent that the applicant himself mentioned two A/C nos. in the application form. The monthly deduction of Rs.989/- was actually the EMI against sanctioned loan for Insurance premium not exceeding Rs.64,593/-. Thus, the deduction was not against monthly premium of the Insurance policy.
Now, so far as the events in chronological order are concerned it transpires that the home loan sanction letter of OP 1 is dtd.08.03.2014 by virtue of which home loan was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- and loan for insurance premium was granted for Rs.64,593/-, the EMI for the same were Rs.16,837/- and Rs.989/- respectively.
The application receipt date of the Member Enrolment Form for the insurance policy was 15.09.2014. But it is discernible from the records placed before this Commission that the policy was never issued by the OP 2 Insurance Company whatever be the reason.
Firstly, the applicant does not appear to have bothered for the policy document in spite of payment of the initial premium of Rs.12,499/- by direct debit from the A/C.
Secondly, in spite of the facts that no further deductions towards the premium were made by the OP Insurance Company and refund of the initial premium amount to the applicant’s account was made by the OP insurance Company on 21.01.2015, the applicant, in next couple of years never felt it necessary to enquire about the non-deduction of further annual premium and refund of the first annual premium.
No definitive evidence is produced before this Commission to substantiate that the applicant made any sort of enquiry or persuasion post refund of the first annual premium by OP 2 and non-deduction of any further premium.
No enquiry appears to have been made even after non-receipt of the relevant policy bond.
At that material point of time, the applicant i.e. the deceased husband of the Complainant was alive. The unfortunate expiry of the applicant happened only on 28.01.2017.
Thus, even if there was a cause of action, it arose on 21.01.15, whereas the legal notice was sent on 15.06.2017 and the Complaint petition was filed on 20.07.2017.
Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the Complaint petition grossly suffers from inconsistencies and also barred by limitation of time. Besides, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment as referred before, any sort of breach of contract, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank or the OP Insurance Company cannot be established.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.153/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest. However, there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
