CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 17/08
.Tuesday the 21st day of February, 2012
Petitioners : Mariyamma Abraham,
Panamkuzhackal,
Vellaiparambil,
Ruby Nagar PO,
Vazhappally, Changanachery.
2) Josco Abraham,
do-do-do-
3) Shincy Abraham
do-do-do
4) Wincy Abrham
do-do-do
(Adv.Sunny Paul)
Vs.
Opposite party : Manager,
Customer Support Team
ICICI Lambard GIC Ltd.,
Zenith House, Keshavaro Gadge Marg,
Mahalakshni, Mubai-400 034.
2) Managing Director,
ICICI Bank Ltd, Land Mark
Race Course Circile, Vadodara 390 007
(Adv. D.Zaibo)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner filed, on 29/12/07, is as follows:
Petitioners are the legal heirs of Mathews.V.Abraham, who died in a road traffic accident on 21/9/2005. The deceased was a holder of Global Indian Credit – Gold card issued by the opposite party and is valid from September 2004 to September 2007. According to petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the gold card, the holder is entitled for a comprehensive insurance of Rs.2,00,000/-. The legal heirs after the death of the card holder, submitted claim before the opposite party, opposite party so far not settled the claim. Hence the petition.
Opposite party 1 filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to 1st opposite party liability of the insurance company is only as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy credit card holder has to made two swipes in the last 90 days prior to the date of loss. According to opposite party 1 card holder has not done the same. So the petitioners are not entitled for the claim amount.
Opposite party 2 is impleaded as per order in IA 164/09 dtd 28/3/09. Opposite party 2 filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. As per the records of the opposite party deceased used the card for the 1st time on 22/10/2004. All claims regarding the conditions of the policy issued by 1st opposite party is not known to the 2nd opposite party. So they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of petitioner is that opposite party has not processed insurance claim of the holder of ICICI - gold card. According to opposite party since the petitioner has not made two swipes in the last 90 days prior to the date of loss he is not entitled for insured amount. Policy document along with conditions of the policy is marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 as item No.8 it is stated that insurance benefit would not be available to a card holder with less than 2 swipes in the last 90 days prior to the date of loss. Ext.B2 is the copy of card statement from 20-8-04 to 20/11/2004 produced by 2nd opposite party. From Ext.B2 document it can be seen that the last 2 swipes were on 4/3/05 and 14/3/2005. So card holder had not done less than 2 swipes in the last 90 days prior to the date of loss so we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in repudiating the claim. Point no.1 is found accordingly
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, petition is dismissed.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of February, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner.
Ext.A1-Original global Indian credit card
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1-Policy conditions.
Ext.B2-copy of card statement
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
