By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

The complaint in short is as follows: -

1.         The complainant along with his wife approached the first opposite party for availing housing loan in favor of the wife of the complainant. The first opposite party agreed to avail loan around Rs.4,75,000/- and the opposite party demanded the complainant to be guarantor and also to pledge the property documents before the 1^st opposite party. The opposite party asked the complainant to subscribe an insurance policy to cover the home loan in case the loanee expires or suffer critical illness and any sort of causality arises in repayment of loan. The wife of the complainant agreed with the suggestion of the first opposite party and requested the opposite party to select an insurance plan to cover the loan amount and ensure no liability to the complainant or to the children in case of death or critical illness to the wife of complainant. The complainant and his wife informed the opposite party that they are willing to pay any amount towards insurance premium. The first opposite party sanctioned housing loan as per loan account number 314604168. The wife of the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.8,825/- which includes 7,936/- as home loan insurance coverage on death and 889/- rupees as coverage on critical illness. The wife of the complainant paid the said amount on 30/09/2008 as per cheque number 153967 and application also placed for home loan protection insurance policy worth Rs.4,75,000/-. The opposite party made believe the complainant that in case death of loanee before the expiry of loan period or the loanee sustained critical illness, then the benefits under the policy will be available to the loanee and the entire liability as per the loan can be settled through the payment by insurance company to the first opposite party. Believing the narration of the first opposite party the complainant produced all the relevant records before the opposite party on 30/09/2008 and put signature on relevant records.  The opposite party obtained several signed papers from the complainant and his wife and some of them were not filled up. The complainant and his wife expressed their anxiety over the blank documents and then the opposite party said to them that it is the usual procedure practicing by them and they are well known institution and they can be taken in good faith. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant and his wife put signature on the documents and in blank papers. As per policy conditions the insurance company has to issue policy bond to the wife of the complainant and the company is bound to obtain signed policy documents from the policy holder. But the insurance papers were prepared in advance on 30/09/2008 and the signature of the wife of the complainant was also availed. The second opposite party encashed the cheque amount of 8,825/- rupees on 13/10/2008 towards the home loan protection plan and critical illness premium. The wife of the complainant received single page policy schedule through postal service bearing number 12264304. The complainant received first premium receipt dated 14/10/2007 along with the policy certificate. There was a letter also acknowledging the acceptance of policy application dated 14/10/2008. The envelop also contained a confirmation letter dated 17/10/2008 revealing the policy assignment.   On examination of the first premium receipt dated 14/10/2008 it could find that the insurance premium was restricted to 7,936/- rupees. There was no mentioning about critical illness coverage. The remaining premium amount 889/- rupees was given to the opposite party to cover the critical illness but the opposite party retained the same without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and his wife. Thereafter the complainant and his wife approached first opposite party and then it was told that since the original policy is assigned to the first opposite party, the responsibility to correct the schedule and include critical illness under the coverage is with the first opposite party and so the complainant and his wife need not worry of the matter and the opposite party assured that they will do the same. Thereafter the first opposite party recovered EMI amount from the HDFC Bank account number 04931050000. It was regular practice of the first opposite party to recover EMI from the account.

2.         While so the wife of the complainant met with cancer ailment during 2014 August onwards. Subsequently the wife of the complainant died on 26/07/2018 due to cancer ailment. The wife of complainant had remitted EMI amount till 15/07/2018 without any default.

3. `       The complainant approached the opposite party on 06/08/2018 to consider the conditions of insurance scheme in respect of the loan availed by the wife of the complainant. Only on that occasion it was came to know that the opposite party has not utilized the premium amount paid to cover critical illness and required amendments in the policy was also not made. The balance amount of Rs. 889/- was transferred in to the account of the complainant’s wife without the consent and knowledge of complainant and his wife.   The opposite party had not issued the policy schedule to the complainants’ wife and so the complainant approached for the same after 06/08/2018 and then only the complainant came to know the trap created by opposite parties. The first opposite party demanded 2,96,178/- rupees towards the loan account. The submission of the complaint is that the complainant was under the believe the entire loan amount of Rs.4,75,000/- was covered by the policy for the period. He submits that the complainant and his wife were under the impression that if the loanee dies during the policy period, the outstanding home loan amount will be paid as per the policy. But the opposite party allowed only 94,500/- rupees towards the insurance claim.  The submission of the complaint is that the second opposite party is bound to pay the outstanding amount of loan and the first opposite party is responsible to release the documents submitted before them as part of loan agreement. Aggrieved complainant approached grievance redressal officer of the opposite party but there was no proper response. In the light of the above facts the prayer of the complainant is that to direct the opposite parties to pay the insured amount Rs.4,75,000/- and also restrain the first opposite party from realizing Rs. 2,96,178/- towards the loan arears. He also prays for the compensation of 5,00,000/- rupees and direction to release the documents submitted before 1^st opposite party as part of loan transaction.

4.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to both opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed detailed version.

5.         The first opposite party admitted that the complainant and his wife approached them for a housing loan and they availed 4,75,000/- as loan. The property meant to construct house situated in Eranad Taluk, Vettikkattiry village, resurvey No. 142/7 with an extended of 4.28 Ares. The complainant obtained right over the property as per document no 4923/1999 and 1015/2004 of S R O, Wandoor. The wife of the complainant was principal borrower and the complainant was co borrower. The term was to repay the loan amount as 180 monthly instalments of Rs.4,833/-.

6.         At the time of availing housing loan, wife of the complainant was an employee of “Anthus pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd”.  The loan was availed to the wife of complainant considering her income and also considering the property documents of the complainant.

6.         The opposite party denied the allegation that the first opposite party insisted the complainant to avail insurance policy to ensure the repayment of loan amount in case death or ailment to the loanee and thereby arising situation making unable to repay the loan amount and to cover the entire loan amount of Rs.4,75,000/- through the brotherly establishment of second opposite party. The complainant and his wife thoroughly understanding the scheme of the second opposite party opted the policy and approached second opposite party. The first opposite party or the second opposite party has not insisted or compelled the complainant to subscribe the policy. The opposite party denied the contention that the complainant on receipt of premium receipt dated 14/10/2008 examined the same and found that only 7,936/- rupees has been received as premium and there was no mentioning about critical illness, Rs.889/- was given to cover critical illness, the opposite party retained the same without the knowledge and consent of complainant or his wife. The Opposite party submitted that the second opposite party received the premium amount and retained the balance amount as per the instruction of complainant alone. The first opposite party have no particular interest or decision in the matter.

7.         The first opposite party submitted that housing loan was approved on 25/01/2008 and the first instalment of 2,50,000/-rupees was issued to the complainant on 29/02/2008 and on the same day loan agreement was executed also. On 10/06/2008 Rs.1,25,000/- and on 18/08/2008 Rs.50,000/- and on 22/09/2008 the final instalment of Rs.50,000/- was issued to the complainant. During the month September 2008, while the wife of the complainant approached the first opposite party requested for an insurance coverage and at that time insurance advisor of second opposite party discussed with wife of the complainant and decided to avail an insurance scheme -Home Loan Protection Plan-HLPP. As per the plan it is a diminishing protection scheme providing 10 years insurance protection. The details of the insurance scheme were provided to the wife of the complainant. She, after understanding the details of the policy signed in the proposal form and incidental documents. The complainant issued premium amount as Rs.7,936/- by way of cheque to the second opposite party. The fact is being as stated above the averment of the complainant that the loan was availed after agreeing to avail insurance policy is not correct.  The complainant’s wife availed the loan and then only decided to avail insurance policy. The opposite party submit that the policy was only to cover 10 years and the same was not covered critical illness and thereby caused death. All the allegations of the complainant are false, hiding the fact and manipulated for the sole purpose of this complaint. The copy of the policy was sent to the wife of the complainant and the same was received by her in the year 2008 itself. Thereafter till 2018 there was no complaint or allegation against the conditions of the policy has been raised either the complainant or his wife.

8.         The first opposite party submit that there was schedule attached to the insurance policy and as per the policy schedule it is endorsed the liability of insurance company to be paid each and every year during 10 years of insurance period. The wife of the complainant or the complainant has not raised any objection regarding the same. Since the complainant and his wife are being aware of the fact, filed this complaint hiding the truth. The opposite party initiated to realize the arrear amount after the death of wife of the complainant including under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and thereby provoked complainant to initiate unnecessary actions and raised allegations without any basis.

9.         The opposite party denied that they obtained blank signed and incomplete papers from the wife of the complainant, on expressing anxiety by the complainant and his wife the opposite party said that the regular practices towards all the customers are the same, they are being well reputed institution, and they can be considered in good faith.  The opposite party submit that the complainant signed all the papers after reading and understanding the contents of the forms.  The form was filled up even before generating the policy number and that reason alone it was incomplete one. The entire other aspects in the form were filled up. It is usual practice to get signature from the policy holders at the time of availing insurance policy. The policy was being to provide protection to the loan amount and the complainant and the account being maintained with the first opposite party, it was necessary to assign insurance policy in favor of the first opposite party and for that purpose the opposite party had collected policy assignment form. The same was forwarded to the insurance company. The said documents were attested by one of the staff of the first opposite party. The second opposite party verified all the documents before issuing the policy and they prepared an insurance policy and then only the policy number originate. Thereafter the second oppose party prepared the document and affixed signed and sealed policy assignment form on original document, noted policy number and commencement date of policy and then issued to the first opposite party. The opposite party issued copy of the same with incidental documents to the complainant’s wife   also.  Only because of the[h1] [h2]  above fact the policy number and commencement date entered in the document subsequently, and the complainant raising false allegations.

10.       The wife of the complainant died after 10 years and as per the schedule in the policy an amount of Rs.94,500/- was credited to the loan account. The actual amount entitled by the complainant as per the policy is being credited, the attempt of the complainant is to avail more amount is to escape from the liability towards the loan amount.

11.       Though the second opposite party transferred the amount due to the complainant as per policy there was arrears towards the loan amount and the first opposite party-initiated proceedings under SARFAESI ACT. The complainant approached Hon’ble High Court as WP © No.11814/2019 and an order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court. As per the decision of Hon’ble High Court the arrears of the complainant were directed to pay in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 29/07/2019. But the complainant so for not complied the same. The first opposite party submitted that it is the responsibility of the complainant and his wife to ensure that the policy availed by them was competent to cover the entire amount of the loan. The deceased wife of the complainant realizing the entire issues subscribed the policy. The term of 10 year was fixed to reduce premium amount. The first opposite party have no role in those things, but extended support to avail the policy. It was the duty of the second opposite party to avail the suitable policy as per the request of complainant and his wife. Hence the allegations of dereliction of duty are opposed to law and truth.  The first opposite party submitted that they are not at all liable to provide any relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint and the prayer of first opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with the cost.

12.       The second opposite party filed version in detail denying the entire averments in the complaint. The submission of the second opposite party is that the complainant being alleged fraud, cheating and also forgery require detailed oral and documentary evidence and so the complaint cannot be tried in summary jurisdiction. The opposite party filed IA 210/20 challenging the maintainability of the complaint.

13.       The second opposite party denied that the wife of the complainant intimated by the representatives of second opposite party that they are prepared to provide insurance policy to the wife of complainant and that would cover the entire loan amount during tenure. It is also contended that   the wife of the complainant has submitted a proposal for insurance policy for the period of 10 years only while the term of loan is 15 years. No contract of insurance covering the entire amount and period of loan have been entered in between the insurer and insured. The second opposite party submitted that the complainant has not opted for critical illness cover nor had paid premium for the same. The insured opted for a plan which does not covers the total span of loan period and the other averments in the complaint are contrary to the fact and so the opposite party denied. The opposite party submitted that the policy document was sent by letter dated 14/10/2008.

14.       The opposite party denied that they assessed premium at Rs.7,936/- for home loan protection insurance and 889/- towards critical illness and that total premium of Rs.8,825/-has been paid is false and so denied. It is also denied that wife of the complainant had applied for a home loan protection plan i.e., covered an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-. It is also denied that complainant and his wife was made to believe that the insurance policy would cover the entire loan amount and all outstanding dues will be settled by virtue of insurance policy on account of death or critical illness of the policy holder and as a result the complainant and his wife signed documents on 30/09/2008. The opposite party denied that several blank papers were given to them signed by the complaint and his wife. They signed several blank papers based on the representation made by the second opposite party, wife of the complainant was made to sign the policy assignment form before issuance of the policy, the second opposite party encahsed cheque worth Rs.8,825/- to issue policy to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/- covering critical illness, complainant had only received a single page of the policy and premium receipt, letter dated 14/10/2008, assignment confirmation letter dated 17/08/2008.  The opposite party submitted that they had sent entire policy documents and all relevant records to the registered address of the wife of the complainant. It is submitted that the first page of the policy document which the complainant admits to have received clearly stated that the insurance policy is enclosed alongside and that a copy of the proposal form and other relevant documents submitted by the wife of complaint and also the final illustration accepted by the wife of the complainant had also enclosed.  The opposite party submit that the first page of the policy states that if the insured was not agreeable to any of the provisions stated in the policy and the details in the proposal form the wife of the complainant had the option of returning the policy to the second opposite party stating reason thereof within 15 days of receipt of the policy. The submission of the opposite party is that the allegation of the complainant that she received the first page only is an afterthought and the insured was made aware of the content of the policy in the first page of the policy document. The opposite party denied that the premium amount reduced to Rs.7,936/-. The opposite party denied that the insured had intended coverage for critical illness. An amount of Rs.889/- was retained by the second opposite party towards the future premium as and when due since the insured had paid an amount in excess of the required premium. The insured was made aware of the same but no protest or complaint were received by the second opposite party in relation to the same. The opposite party submitted that this particular plan has been designed to help the family to repay the outstanding home loan in case of an unfortunate death of the life insured is false and so denied. It is submitted by the opposite party that the wife of the complainant availed policy subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the opposite party on death of the life insured within the policy tenure the corresponding sum assured is paid as death benefit.

15.       The opposite party denied that on death of the insured the second opposite party ought to have paid the total outstanding loan amount.  The opposite party also denied the averments that they had not made any changes in the policy so as to bring the decease of the wife of the complainant with in the critical illness coverage of the policy, the premium amount of Rs.889/- was not utilized for the purpose and the same was transferred to the salary account. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had obtained the documents attached to the policy schedule which was not given to the wife of the complaint on 06/08/2018 is false and so denied. The opposite party submit that the wife of the complainant availed HDFC home loan protection plan bearing policy No.12264304 from the second opposite party. The said policy was for a period of 10 years and covered for an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- which was on a diminishing scale with each completed year. The policy availed by the wife of the complainant had specific clauses, schedules and illustrations in relation to the sum payable by the second opposite party. The wife of the complainant had passed away after completion of 9 years from the date of commencement of the policy. The second opposite party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy credited an amount of Rs.94,500/- which was the amount payable as per the schedule of sum assured payable for HDFC home loan protection plan. According to the opposite party the policy availed by the wife of the complainant had a free look period and if she was not agreeable to any of the provisions of the policy and details in the proposal form, she could exercise the option to return the policy stating to the second opposite party the reasons thereof within 15 days of receipt of the policy. The non-exercise of the option to withdraw can only be deemed to be an acceptance of the terms and conditions of the policy. The wife of the complainant was given the policy in accordance with the proposal form submitted by her and second opposite party had acted as per the schedule and terms and conditions of the policy.

16.       The opposite party denied that complainant has taken the policy from the second opposite party under the believe that risk of Rs.4,75,000/- would be covered during the loan period. The oppose party denied that they are liable to pay the balance home loan amount if death occurs during the period of insurance. The opposite party also denied the allegation that there is deficiency in service and default and that amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party also denied the allegation that there was default in utilizing the premium amount for covering critical illness. The opposite party submit that they issued policy to the complainant as required in the proposal form. The opposite party denied that the complainant is entitled Rs.4,75,000/- and the insurance is a contract based on the terms and conditions of the policy and the opposite party is liable only according to the conditions of the policy.

17.       The opposite party denied that there should not be any difference in the actual outstanding balance and the correspondence coverage in the policy. It is submitted that the coverage was issued based on the proposal form. The opposite party denied that the difference happened because of the collusion between the first and second opposite parties. The allegation that the cheque for Rs.8,825/- was included an amount of Rs.7,936/- being single premium for 10 years and an amount of Rs.889/- for critical illness-is false and so denied. The complainant and the policy holder had not raised any complaint with the opposite party stating that they had asked for critical illness coverage.  Opposite party contended that the amount of Rs.889/- was retained by them as interest free towards future premium   and credited to the account of wife of the complainant. The opposite party denied the contention that the policy holder had not seen the policy nor approved the schedule.  It is submitted by the opposite party that the wife of the complainant – the policy holder had put her signature and the policy terms and conditions are binding on the insured. The opposite party denied the contention that the policy holder was not aware of the policy schedule and the signing of the assignment letter and the allegation of forgery against the opposite party. The opposite party submitted that the policy holder subscribed her signature after knowing the contents of the document. The opposite party denied the averments that the coverage according to the loan was not given, policy issued was not legal, there is dereliction of duty, and there is deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice. The opposite party submitted that the policy was issued to the wife of the complainant, it was an IRDA approved application and as per request the proposal form issued. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint with cost.

18.       The complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A11.  Documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext.B1 and B2.  Ext. A1 (9 pages) is copy of confirmation of assignment dated 17/10/2008. Ext. A2 (5pages) is amortization schedule from 01/10/2008 to 30/06/2018. Ext.A3 (5 pages) is copy of insurance policy bond received by the complainant from the first opposite party on 06/08/2018. Ext. A4 (2 pages) is photo copy of petition filed by complainant before the first opposite party on 09/08/2018 demanding documents. Ext. A5 (3 pages) is copy of letter addressed to grievance redressal officer dated 20/10/2018. Ext. A6 is copy of letter issued by the redressal officer to the complainant dated 12/11/2018. Ext. A7 (2 pages) is photo copy of salary account statement of wife of the complainant. Ext. A8 (2 pages) is copy of printout regarding HDFC Life home loan protection plan. Ext. A9 (12 pages) is printout of chapter 3 of insurance act 1938. Ext. A10 is copy of demand notice issued by the first opposite party to the wife of the complainant dated 12/11/2018. Ext. A11 (3 pages) photo copy of extract from diary of the wife of complainant dated 13/12/2008. Ext. B1 is insurance application form dated 30/09/2008. Ext. B2 is copy of confirmation of assignment dated 17/10/2008.

Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavits and the notes of argument submitted by the parties

19.       The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the insurance policy issued by opposite party No.2 is covered the outstanding housing loan of the complainant and his wife?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
4. Relief and cost?

20.       Point No.1

Both the opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable. The contention is that the complainant alleged fraud, cheating and forgery against opposite parties. The complainant also alleged conspiracy against opposite parties. More over the first opposite party contended that they have not provided any service to the complainant and so a complaint against first opposite party is not maintainable and according to him he is an unnecessary party.

21.       Considering the averment in the complaint it can be seen that the wife of the complainant availed housing loan from the first opposite party and the housing loan was insured with the second opposite party. The complainant herein was the co borrower. The wife of the complainant is no more at present. The dispute is whether the insurance policy provided by the second opposite party will cover the entire outstanding loan of the wife of the complainant or not. There is no dispute that the first opposite party provided housing loan to the wife of complainant and they are a known banking institution. A dispute between the customer and the banking institution   is covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The second opposite party is the insurer and the dispute is with respect to an insurance policy issued by the second opposite party. A dispute between the policy holder and the insurer comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties. Complainant also alleges unholy alliance between the opposite parties. A mere allegation and averments of fraud, cheating and forgery will not take away the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainant approached this Commission not to proceed with action against opposite parties on the ground of fraud or cheating or forgery. The complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against opposite parties. The prayer of the complainant is to redress the grievance   through awarding sufficient amount as compensation on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. So, we do not find any merit in the contention of opposite parties regarding maintainability and we hold the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

22.       Point No.2 & 3

The wife of the complainant along with complainant approached first opposite party for availing housing loan. The opposite party considering the income of the wife of the complainant and the property documents of the complainant found that they are entitled for housing loan of Rs.4,75,000/-. The complainants submit that the first opposite party demanded the complainant to be the co-borrower and to furnish property details. On completing the formalities, the first opposite party allowed the loan through instalments. There is no dispute regarding the issuance of the loan. As per the loan agreement between the wife of the complainant and the first opposite party, the wife of the complainant was liable to repay the loan amount within 15 years on monthly instalments. At the time of availing housing loan, the first opposite party advised the wife of the complainant to subscribe an insurance policy of the second opposite party which is a brotherly institution of the first opposite party. The purpose of subscribing the policy was to provide protection to the housing loan in case of death or critical illness to the loanee during the loan period. The complainant submit that the wife of the complainant requested the first opposite party to select an insurance policy which will provide financial protection to the complainant and their children and even the loanee itself in case of death or critical illness. Accordingly, the first opposite party assessed value of insurance premium for home loan insurance as Rs.7,936/- and critical illness as Rs.889/- and the total amount of premium as Rs 8825/-. The wife of the complainant issued cheque number 153967 dated 30/09/2008 of HDFC Bank in favor of second opposite party.  The complainant submitted all the documents demanded by the first opposite party on 30/09/2008 which includes certain in completed signed papers and blank forms. It is submitted by the complainant that his wife and himself expressed their concern in putting signature in incomplete forms. But it was told that it is the practice of the opposite party and they are being a known banking institution need not worry of the business. The afore stated cheque issued on 30/09/2008 was encashed by the second opposite party on 13/10/2008. Thereafter the wife of the complainant received single page policy schedule on 04/11/2008. The aforesaid policy schedule and premium receipt dated 14/10/2008 and also a confirmation letter dated 17/10/2008 was delivered to complainant in a single envelop. The premium receipt was issued for Rs.7,936/-. Since there was no mentioning about critical illness coverage, complainant along with his wife approached the first opposite party and then it was told that there is assignment of insurance policy in favor of first opposite party and so the first opposite party assured that they will take appropriate steps to rectify the defect incorporating provision for critical illness coverage.  The first opposite party regularly recovered loan instalments from the account of the wife of the complainant. The wife of the complainant died on 27/06/2018 due to cancerous decease and till that monthly instalment was paid from the account of wife of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the first opposite party to report the death of the wife of the complainant   and to settle the loan account under the strength of insurance policy. It was to his surprise on 06/08/2018 when the complainant approached the first opposite party, he came to know that his policy was not covered critical illness and no reassignment was done though the wife of the complainant had remitted sufficient amount to avail the competent insurance policy. The opposite parties retained the said amount of Rs.889/- as interest free.  The amount of Rs.889/- was transferred subsequently to the account of wife of the complainant on 10/11/2008 without the consent and information of the complainant or his wife.

23.       The complainant submits that the entire transaction with the opposite parties was took place from the first opposite party office. As per their suggestion the insurance policy was availed from the second opposite party who is none other than the brotherly establishment of first opposite party. The insurance premium amount was given by the wife of the complainant as a cheque worth Rs.8,825/- as per the instruction of the first opposite party who in turn discussed the same with the second opposite party and prescribed the amount. The complainant submits the insurance policy demanded was to cover critical illness also and so the total amount was fixed as Rs 8825/-. The same being the specific case of the complainant the second opposite party or the first opposite party has to explain under what circumstances the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.8,825/- from the complainant. It can be seen from the averment of opposite party No.1 all the documents to the second opposite party was forwarded by opposite party No.1 itself. There is contention on the side of first opposite party that the insurance company was advised to receive the limited amount towards the premium and to retain the balance amount by the complainant and his wife.  But there is no document to establish the same. It is also vital to note that the wife of the complainant was received insurance counseling of the second opposite party from the office of the first opposite party. It is also to be noted that there is no proper averment regarding value of the policy to cover critical illness also as part of the present policy.

24.       The complainant has got a specific case that all the documents in respect of insurance were taken at a stretch from the office of the first opposite party. It is contented that the opposite parties insisted for signature in blank papers as well as incomplete forms. It is to be noted that the insurance policy was availed to meet outstanding loan amount in case of death or critical illness of the wife of the complainant and the first opposite party advanced the loan amount also. The insurance assignment was to be provided in favor of the first opposite party at the first instance of availing insurance policy. The first opposite party admit that the insurance assignment was executed even prior to the allotment of insurance policy. Hence in the absence of policy number some part of the assignment document was blank but all other documents were properly executed. Hence what can be inferred from the contention is that the deceased wife of the complainant executed all the insurance documents prior to generation of insurance policy including insurance assignment .There was no documentary verification of policy condition by the complainant except insurance counselling.

25.       The complainant has got a case that his wife received copy of policy schedule along with confirmation of assignment dated 17/10/2008 and premium receipt dated 14/10/2008 in a single envelop. It is submitted by the complainant that the wife of the complainant received single page policy schedule and no schedule of benefits or other details of policy provision were served. It is also submitted that on receipt of premium receipt dated 14/10/2008 it was noted that single premium amount for covering the risk has been reduced to Rs.7,936/- and Rs.889/- as extra amount retained as interest free advance towards future premium. The case of the complainant is that the total amount of 8,825/- rupees was computed and collected not merely for covering the life risk but also the risk of non-payment of loan amount due to critical illness as well. The cheque was given to the second opposite party- the insurance company. But the insurance company encashed the cheque on 13/10/2008 and accounted 7936/- rupees towards the premium amount. Later the balance amount of 889/- rupees was returned to the first opposite party bank and which was done without the consent or knowledge of the wife of the complainant. It can be seen that there is no explanation for receiving 8,825/- rupees as cheque from the wife of complainant and also there is no explanation for returning amount of Rs.889/- to the first opposite party bank. The second opposite party insurance company was bound to inform the wife of the complainant about the excess amount of Rs.889/- and there was no justification for transferring the amount without the knowledge and consent of the wife of the complainant into the account maintained in the first opposite party bank.

26.       The second opposite party has got contention that there was 15 days free look period for the wife of the complainant either to accept the policy conditions or to reject the policy. But the contention of the complainant is that except containing a policy schedule no schedule of benefits or other details of policy provisions furnished to the wife of complainant. So, it is the responsibility of the second opposite party to establish that schedule of benefits and other details were furnished to the wife of the complainant along with policy schedule. In the absence of any documents to show that schedule of benefits or other details were furnished to the wife of the complainant along with policy copy, it is proper to accept the contention of complainant.

27.       The complainant contended that on receipt of premium receipt for Rs.7,936 approached the first opposite party and enquired about the balance amount of rupees 825 and told the said amount was remitted towards covering critical illness. Then the first opposite party made believe the complainant and his wife that they are being the assignee of insurance policy, they will take appropriate steps to cover critical illness and for the revised  policy schedule. But the first opposite party had not taken any steps and thereafter the death of the wife, complainant approached the opposite party, obtained policy details including policy schedule and other details as evident from Ext. A3 series. Only at that time the first opposite party demanded 2,96,178/- rupees to close the loan amount. The contention of the complainant is that he is entitled to close the loan amount under the strength of insurance policy. He submits that the second opposite party is bound to pay the outstanding home loan amount and thereby liable to exonerate the wife and the complainant from the loan liability. The second opposite party allowed only 94,500/- rupees towards the insurance claim. According to second opposite party they are only bound to pay Rs.94,500/- which is the assured amount as per the policy. Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled for the assured amount as per the schedule or the outstanding loan amount at the time of death of the wife of complainant.

28.       The complainant submitted that the wife of the complainant and himself approached first opposite party for the housing loan and thereafter to avail insurance policy to cover the housing loan in case of death of the policy holder or situation which make unable the complainant or his wife to repay the loan amount due to critical illness. The complainant and his wife paid premium amount to cover critical illness also. Complainant has got a case that the wife of the complainant served single page policy schedule which does not reveal policy assured amount. So, the contention of the complainant is that the policy issued by the opposite party was to cover entire outstanding loan amount and not the sum assured as claimed by the opposite parties. The complainant produced amortization schedule from 01/12/2008 to 30/06/2018 related to the loan involved in the complaint. Schedule shows that on 01/06/2018 the principal amount as 2,96,178/- rupees. The first opposite party demanded the complainant to close the loan amount by making payment of amortization amount after deducting the amount paid by the second opposite party i.e., 94,500/-.  So, the submission of the complainant is that there should be no difference in between the actual outstanding balance and corresponding assured amount.

29.       The complainant submitted in the complaint as follows from the website of HDFC Home loan protection plan-

1) HDFC Life Home Loan Protection Plan is a protection plan.  This is a Traditional Decreasing Term Plan without Bonus facility.  This plan has been designed to help family repay the outstanding Home Loan in case of an unfortunate death of the Life insured (Document No.8, Page .1). 

2) Being pure Term Plan, there is no Maturity Benefit in this plan. However, in case of unfortunate death of the Life Insured within the policy Tenure, the corresponding Sum Assured is paid as Death Benefit to cover the outstanding Home Loan and the policy terminates. (Document No.8, page 1)

3) Death Benefit –Since this is a pure term plan, the corresponding Sum Assured is paid as Death Benefit if the insured dies during the policy tenure to pay for the outstanding Home Loan and the policy terminates. (Document No.8, page 1).    

30.       In this complaint it can be seen that all the documents executed before the first opposite party, the bank. Even policy assignment document executed before creating insurance policy.  The original policy copy was issued to the first opposite party by the second opposite party. The cheque for Rs.8 ,829/- was drawn in favor of insurance company the second opposite party . The second opposite party encashed the policy on 13/10/2008 for Rs.7,936/- and the balance was transferred to the first opposite party bank without informing the wife of the complainant. The cheque amount according to complainant was covered critical illness also. The complainant and his wife informed the first opposite party and got assurance that the first opposite party will do the necessary things to cover critical illness.  The policy was subscribed to cover the loan amount in case of death or critical illness of the loanee. At the time of hearing the complainant produced photo copies of pages from the personal diary of the deceased wife which is marked as Ext. A11 series. He read few lines from the diary of the deceased wife which is dated 13^th and 14^th   December 2008 as follows:-

“Insurance coverage എടുത്തു HDFC Home loan ല്‍ for    10 yrs.   9000 Rs അടച്ചു.  If anything happens to me the family will not have the liability. So now I am tension free. 13/10/2008    8890/- അടച്ചു (Insurance Home Loan)”. So the contention of the compliant is definite that they subscribed the policy to cover the entire Home Loan. There is no reason to have deference between the outstanding loan amount and the sum assured as per insurance policy. There is no contention that the complainant defaulted payment of instalments till death of his wife.

31.       It is to be noted that information furnished regarding the HDFC Home Loan Protection Plan in the website causes misleading notion in the mind of public. The complainant rightly produced copy of the same before the Commission and it is marked Ext. A8. It has stated that the plan has been designed to help family to repay the outstanding home loan in case of an unfortunate death of the life assured. The sum assured is chosen as the total outstanding home loan amount which keeps decreasing every year as a percentage as per the policy schedule. The term ‘outstanding loan amount’ and ‘corresponding sum assured makes ambiguity’. Ultimate result is the litigation. The policy holders are attracted by the offer to pay for the outstanding Home loan in case of death of the policy holder. In this complaint the complainant and his wife was under the impression that the policy will cover the outstanding   loan in case of death of policy holder. Hence the commission find that there was unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and also deficiency in service. It is also to be noted that the act of the opposite parties, though they are described as separate entities, doing business in effect under single roof which also amounts unfair trade practice.   

32.       Pont No.4

            The claim of the complainant is to get sum assured of Rs.4,75,000/- along with compensation of 5,00,000/-. Complainant also seeking  direction to the first opposite party to release   all  the documents submitted along with loan application and also restrain the first opposite party from realizing Rs.2,96,178/- from the complainant. It is definite that the insurance scheme is a home loan protection plan and perusal of conditions the complainant is not entitled for the insured sum of Rs.4,75,000/-. But the dispute is centered on entitlement of entire outstanding loan amount at the time of death of policy holder. It is already found that the information and the condition provided by the opposite parties were misleading and so it was found the complainant entitled for the outstanding loan amount. In this complaint it can be seen that the second opposite party had issued a sum of Rs.94,500/- as assured amount in favor of first opposite party. But the outstanding loan amount is Rs.2,96,178/-. The second opposite party is liable to pay the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs.2,96,178/-. The complainant produced documents to show that he had affected the loan transaction on his CIBIL score. The same was happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He claims compensation to the tune of Rs.500000/, but it is too fabulous and he is not entitled that amount. The Commission consider Rs.200000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused in convenience   and hardship to the complainant. The complainant also entitled for reasonable amount of cost and we allow Rs.20,000/- on that account. In the above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows:  

1. The first opposite party is restrained from realizing the outstanding loan amount in respect of loan account maintained by the first opposite party as housing loan account No.314604168 in the name of Mrs. Vineetha . N, the wife of the complainant.
2. If at all the first opposite party is entitled for the outstanding loan amount and interest there on, the first opposite party is at liberty to proceed against second opposite party since the policy in dispute was assigned in favor of the first opposite party at the time of inception of the policy .
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused hardships, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.
4. The first opposite party is directed to deliver all the documents to the complainant which was entrusted to the first opposite party as part of loan transaction
5. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said entire amount of 2,20,000/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

Dated this 13^th day of May, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A10

Ext.A1: 9 pages) is copy of confirmation of assignment dated 17/10/2008.

Ext.A2: (5pages) is amortization schedule from 01/10/2008 to 30/06/2018.

Ext A3: (5 pages) is copy of insurance policy bond received by the complainant from

    the first opposite party on 06/08/2018.

Ext A4: (2 pages) is photo copy of petition filed by complainant before the first

opposite party on 09/08/2018 demanding documents.

Ext A5: (3 pages) is copy of letter addressed to grievance redressal officer dated

  20/10/2018.

Ext. A6: copy of letter issued by the redressal officer to the complainant dated

   12/11/2018.

Ext. A7:(2 pages) is photo copy of salary account statement of wife of the complainant.

Ext. A8: (2 pages) is copy of printout regarding HDFC Life home loan protection plan.

Ext. A9: (12 pages) is printout of chapter 3 of insurance act 1938.

Ext. A10: Copy of demand notice issued by the first opposite party to the wife of the

   complainant dated 12/11/2018.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2

Ext.B1: Insurance application form dated 30/09/2008.

Ext.B2: Copy of confirmation of assignment dated 17/10/2008.

VPH

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member