Haryana

StateCommission

A/745/2016

PANKAJ BHARDWAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDUSIND BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL NEHRA

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No. 745 of 2016

Date of Institution:12.08.2016

Date of Decision: 01.08.2017

 

Pankaj Bhardwaj son of Shri Shyam Sunder, resident of Village Butana, Tehsil Gohana, at present resident of House No.24A, Tirloki Nath Park, Bandepur, Sonepat, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Indusind Bank Private Limited, through its Manager, Branch Office, Gohana, in front of Truck Union, Rohtak Road, Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana.

2.      Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office Dare House, 2^nd Floor, No.2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Ms. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                                                                                            

For the parties:             Sh. Vishal Nehra, Advocate for the appellant

                             Sh. A.S. Khara, Advocate for the respondent No.1

                             Sh. Puneet Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.2

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated July 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Shyam Sunder, deceased, father of Pankaj Bhardwaj-complainant obtained loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase a car from Indusind Bank Limited-opposite party No.1 (for short, ‘bank’) on December 18^th, 2012.  At the time of obtaining the loan, the bank got Shyam Sunder insured from Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) vide Certificate of Insurance (Exhibit C-1).  Shyam Sunder died on July 22^nd, 2013.  The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated on the ground that the sum assured of Rs.3,70,000/- was payable only on account of accidental death whereas Shyam Sunder died due to ailment as per death summary (Exhibit R2/9) issued by Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi.

3.       It is not in dispute that Shyam Sunder died due to ailment.  It is also not in dispute that the sum assured, that is, Rs.3,70,000/- was in respect of death due to accident and not otherwise. He was covered under the Group Personal Accident Master Policy.  The sum assured was payable only in the case of accidental death.   In this view of the matter, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.  Hence, the appeal is also dismissed. 

 

 

Announced 01.08.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K