Karnataka

Bidar

CC/55/2015

Smt.Sunita W/o Manik Dharmanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

ING VYSYA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

PRAKASH V M

31 Jan 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                      C.C.No. 55/2015

 

                                                                                      Date of filing: 27/07/2015

 

                                                                                 Date of disposal : 31/01/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                    President.

    

                                      (2) Shri. Shankrappa,(Halipurgi)

                                                                          B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                     Member.

 

 

COMPLAINANT:          Sunita, w/o Manik Dharamanna,

                                      Age: major, Occ: House hold,

                                         R/o H.no.1-65, Uchha Post, Tq. Bhalki,

                                         Dist.Bidar.

                                        

 

 

                                     (By Shri. Prakash V.M., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-             1.  Chief Operating Officer,

                                               ING Vysya House, 5^th Floor, No.22,

                                               M.G. road, Bangalore-560001.

           

                                        2.   The Manager,

                                               ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

                                                Sridevi Towers,

                                               Behind Khadi Bhandar,

                                                Bidar.

 

 

 

                       

                                    (O.P.No.1 by Shri.Satish Kulkarni, Advocate)

                                    (O.P.No.2 by Shri.Vilas Rao M.More Advocate)

 

 

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This is a complaint filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.P alleging  deficiency in service  on the part of O.Ps.  

 

2.           The gist of the case is as here under:

               The husband of the complainant late Manik, s/o Nilkanta Dharmanna during his life time had obtained a Policy namely “  Creating Life Child Protection Plan” from the O.P.no.2, policy no. 01983324, the sum assured was Rs. 1,39,710.  Accordingly the complainant’s husband had paid the initial premium sum of Rs. 15,000/- on 05/10/2010 and also paid regular premiums with the O.P.No.2 for respective years during his life time.   Complainant avers that on 18/12/2013 the husband of the complainant had died.   As the complainant was the nominee in the said policy, she approached to the O.Ps for claiming the assured amount along with the necessary documents.  But the O.Ps have not paid the policy assured amount to the complainant  for one or other reasons.  Though the complainant had issued legal notice to the O.Ps, they have not settled the claim of the complainant.  This act of the O.Ps.   shows that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence, the complainant is before this Forum for claiming compensation against the O.Ps.

3.              On receipt of the Court notice the O.P. no.1 and 2 have appeared before this Forum and filed their respective written versions Therein the  O.P.no.1 avered that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under legal grounds and on factual basis.  The complainant is guilty of suppressing material and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint apart from filing a vexatious and frivolous complaint.   It is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Forum, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage.   It is admitted  fact that the complainant’s husband late MR. Manik Dharamanna had availed the life insurance policy bearing no. 01983324 from the O.P.no.1on 05/10/2010 and in this regard life assured had submited the duly executed proposal from dated 5/10/2010.  In the said proposal from Life Assured agreed to pay the regular premium of Rs.15,000/- each year for premium paying term of 10 years and sum assured chosen by him was Rs.1,39,710/- for tenure of 10 years.  The Life Assured nominated the complainant as nominee under the policy.  The said facts were clearly captured in the proposal form dated 5/10/2010 and Life Assured also given declaration to this effect.  Accordingly, O.P.no.1 believing the answers, statements and declaration made by the Life Assured to be true and correct issued the life insurance policy to him and the Life assured had not raised any concern during his life time on policy terms an condition, hence contract of life insurance got concluded. 

4.             Further O.P.no.1 avered that the next premium due date under the said policy was on 5/10/2011 which was not paid by the Life Assured within grace period of 30 days because of which policy got lapsed.  However Life Assured approached the O.P.no.1 on 21/11/2011 and made payment towars his policy along with the late fee.  Accordingly, O.P.no.1 duly reinstated Life Assured Policy.  Subsequently, next due date under the policy was 5/10/2012 but Life Assured did not make any payment towards the said policy for watsoeve reason best known to him because of which policy got lapsed once again.  As per clause 5 of the polcy terms and conditions which are reiterated herein below for ready reference of this Hon’ble Forum as follow:

“ After the date of Policy Commencement, any premium due must be paid not later than 30 days from its due date.  Any unpaid premium is deductible from the benefits that may arise during the 30 days grace period.  If the premiums due are not paid within the grace period, the policy lapses.  The date of lapse shall be the due date of the earlier unpaid premium.  The company shall immediately thereon, cease to be liable to pay the sum assured under such lapsed policy, except as stated under the non-forfeiture provisions of this policy, until and unless the policy has been fully reinstated.  A lapse policy shall cease to participate in the profits of the Company from the lapse date”

Thus from the above it is clear that in case policy lapse and death occur subsequent to it, then  Company shall immediately cease to pay sum assured under such lapse policy.  It is further pertinent to know on Non-Forfeiture Provisions of basic terms and conditions which has reiterated herein below as follows:  “ If at least three full years premium have been paid and if any subsequent premium due has not been received by the Company the policy shall be continued without further premiums as non-participating paid-up assurance for remaining duration of the policy with a reduced paid-up sum assured”.   Thus, from the above it is clear that non-forfeiture provision is applicable only when minimum three years premium were paid.  Hence, said provision is not applicable to present case as Life Assured paid only two premiums.

5.               O.P.no.1 further avered that, as per the policy terms and conditions O.P.no.1 is not liable to pay death claim neither it agreed to refund the premium in such contingency.  Further, complainant had  sent legal notice demanding to release the claim and return of premium amount which was duly replied by the O.P.no.1.  Thus, from the above it is clear that, O.P.no.1 had not acted contrary to any policy terms and condition which was entered between the parties.  Hence the O.P.no.1 has not committed any deficiency of service with the complainant.  The complainant has failed to set up the nexus between the alleged deficiency of service and the damages and costs claimed hence, complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for.  Hence complaint is may be dismissed with costs.

 

 6.         O.P.no.2 in his written statement avered that, the complainant against the O.P.no.1 and 2 who are nowhere concern to the allegations made in the complaint and also the prayer made by the complainant.   As on the date of filing the complaint the ING Vysya Bank Ltd. is not in existence.  The respondent Bank amalgamated with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. pursuant to the orders issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on 31-03-2015 under sub-section (4) of Section 44 A of the Banking Regulation Act., 1949 approving the schedule of amalgamation of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. with effect from April,2015.  Hence they are now entirely different entity(s) and has nothing to do with the issuance as alleged and claimed in the complaint by the complainant.  The documents produced by the complainant itself it reveales that, the complainant’s husband  had obtained the insurance with ING Vysya Life insurance and also the documents revel that, the deceased Manik husband of the complainant has taken the insurance with ING Life Insurance.  The entity ING Life Insurance now taken over by Exide Life Isurance and ING Vysya Bank Ltd ( Now Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.) are two different entities having no relationship with each other.

7.                   In reply to the para no.2 to 7  and para no. 9 and 10 are absolutely false, since the both the O.Ps are nowhere concerned to the said Insurance, the question of payment of money will not arise.  In reply to para no.8 of the complaint no doubt the complainant has issued a legal notice to this O.P.no.2 but, the O.P.no.2 in their letter dated 07/03/2015 has clearly stated that, the said Advocate has wrongly addressed the notice to the O.P.no.2 with an information that, the copy of his legal notice was forwarded to M/s  Exide Life Insurance Ltd. ( erstwhile ING Vysya Life Insurance Co.Ltd.) for doing the needful.  The said letter of the respondent no.2 has been acknowledged by the advocate for the complainant.  In spite of having the knowledge that, this O.P.no.2 is nowhere concerned to the O.P.no.1   and even the Exide Life Insurance, has replied to the legal notice dt. 23-02-2015 to the counsel for the complainant on              05-03-2015 admitting the policy of the deceased husband of the complainant was with them, the O.P.no.2 has been wrongly impleaded in this case.  It is worth mentioning there that, initially the husband of the complainant namely Manik has obtained the Insurance with erstwhile ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd.     ( not with ING Vysya Bank Ltd.).  Now it is known as Exide Life Insurance Company Limited.  Even after having the knowledge of this, the complainant ought to have filed the case against the Exide Life Insurance and not the O.P.no.1 and 2 and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with costs.

8.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Is not the case bad by non-joinder of necessary party(s)?

 

2. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

3. Was the O.Ps justified in repudiating the claim?
4.  
4. What order ?

 

 

 

9.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.  In the affirmative.

               2.  In the negative.

               3.  In the affirmative.

               4. As per the final order, for the following:

 

                 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

 

 10.      Point No.1:  In the instant case, the original O.Ps arrayed in their versions  have vociferously stated that, they have initially merged with M/s Kotak Mahindra Ltd. and subsequently the nomenclature was changed to M/s Exide Life Insurance Ltd.  Vide the communiqué of M/s ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Devi Towers, Kempayya chowk Bidar dt. 07/03/2015, in response to the legal notice of the complainant dt.06/11/2014 and 20/02/2015, the institution has informed the fact to the learned counsel of the complainant.  Howerver, M/s ING Vysya was diligent enough to forward the claim to M/s Exide.  Even the new entity M/s Exide vide their communiques dt.14/11/2014 and 05/03/2015 has taken the responsibility to process the claim unto themselves, agreeing with the assertions of M/s ING Vysya, affirming the amalgamations.  ON the face of the situation, as described above, the complainant while filing the complaint on 27/07/2015 had not chosen to implead M/s Exide Life Insurance as a party.  After the revelation by the O.P.s the complainant was directed take necessary steps to implead M/s Kotak Mahindra and M/s Exide as necessary parties on 07/10/2016.  After skipping two hearings, on 05/12/2016, the counsel for the complainant filed on I.A. under order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to implead the new intending parties.  In spite of being suggested that, he was harping a wrong provision of law and should file I.A. under order 1 Rule 10(2), the counsel remained adamant and challenged the Court to pass any other deemed fit.  Resultantly the wrong I.A. was rejected and chance was given to take fresh steps by  05/01/2017.  The learned counsel remained absent, no step was taken and the case was posted for orders to 31/01/2017.  Any time after 05/01/2017, the counsel has never approached this case to remedify the follies.  Hence, we hold that, the case is bad by non-joinder.

 

11.  Point No.2 & 3:   Both points closely linked to each other, we proceed to answer them together.

 

                 Juxtapose to the claims of the complainant that her husband had paid up to date  premiums, to the O.Ps are vivid that, the policy after commencement on 05/10/2010, only are subsequent premium due on 05/10/2011 was paid that too  after grace period regularising the policy.  The later premium due on 05/10/2012 was never paid even within the grace period of thirty days and policy stood lapsed.  To counter the assertions of the O.Ps, no premium receipt was ever filed by the complainant.  Hence it is clear that, the policy was lapsed after paying just two yearly premiums.

 

12.                Vide clause 4 of the policy document  at  in page -13, surrender of policy is permissible only after three full years premium.  The non forfeiture vide clause 5 of the same page also requires three full year’s premium payment.  Hence, we hold that, the complainant is neither eligible for insurance claim nor surrender value nor non- fore -feature clause and hence answer point no.2 and 2 accordingly.

 

13.                 Basing on the discussions supra, we proceed to pass the following:

 

 

 

 

 

: :   ORDER : :

 

                  The complaint is dismissed as not due.

                  There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st  day of January-2017 )

 

 

 

              Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                   

       Member.                                                                   President.

 

Documents filed by the complainant.

 

1. Ex.P.1- Policy document.
2. Ex.P.2-  Copy of death certificate.
3. Ex.P.3- Copy of Aadhar Card of complainant.
4. Ex.P.4-  Copy of Ration Card.
5. Ex.P.5-  Copy of Legal notice dt. 06/11/2013.
6. Ex.P.6-Communique dt. 14/11/2014 from M/s Exide Life Insurance.
7. Ex.P.7- Copy of another legal notice, dt. 23/02/2015.
8. Ex.P.8- Further correspondence M/s Exide Life Insurance,dt.05/03/2015.
9. Ex.P.9- Correspondence of M/s ING Vysya Bank LTd.,dt.07/03/2015
10. Ex.P.10- 4 number of courier receipt and postal receipts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Documents filed by the O.Ps

Nil 

 

 

              Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.