KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APEAL NO.462/11

JUDGMENT DATED 28.4.2012

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                              --  MEMBER

1.      V.Reji,

Athiyaravilakathu Veedu,

Odanakuzhy Lane, Near Devi Temple,

Aryalloor, Thirumala,

Thorivamamtja[ira, - 6.

2.      Neeraj,                                                       --  APPELLANTS

             - do –

3.      Mamratha

             - do -

   (By Adv.C.Sasidharan Pillai & Ors.)

                             Vs.

1.      M/s.City Bank, Credit Card Centre,

          Reptd. by the Chief Executive Officer,

          Global Consumer Bank,

          Insurance Opertors, P.B.No.4830

          Annasalai, Chennai.

2.      The Manager,                                            --  RESPONDENTS

 Customer Care Card  Member Services,

P.B.No.48310, 

Annasalai, Chennai.

3.      Royal Sundaram Insurance Co.Ltd;

          Reptd. by the Managing Director,

          Corporate Claim Department,

Sundaram Towers 45 & 46

White Road, Chennai 600 014.

(R1& 2 by Adv.R.Suja & Ors; R3 by Adv.V.Manikantan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the complainants in CC.56/06 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complaint stands dismissed.

          2. The complainants are the LRs of the deceasedun  Cap. Anil Prakash who was working at the  Kerala Aviation Training Centre, Thiruvananthapuram.  He was having a credit card of City Bank from the year 2000.  He died in an air crash  at Hyderabad on 29.12.04.  The credit card holder had the protection of Suraksha Credit Shield and Suraksha Personal Accident Benefits.  The deceased was remitting  the premium periodically.  Subsequently, he joined  Andhra Pradesh Aviation Academy.  The first opposite party had sought for the relevant records for settling the death benefits.    On 8.4.05  the second opposite party, the Manager of the Customer Care wing of the first opposite party  has informed that the  air accident Insurance has been withdrawn from the New India Insurance Company and for further clarifications  the first complainants/wife may contact the New India  Insurance Company.  Subsequently, on 31.10.05 the complainant received letter from the third opposite party/Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd; stating that the person engaged in Aviation are not covered under the policy and the claim was repudiated.   The complainants have alleged deficiency in service and has sought for all the benefits under the scheme as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation.

          3. The opposite parties 1 and 2/City Bank has filed version admitting that the deceased was holding   the Credit card of the opposite parties.  The occupation of the deceased is of a high risk  nature as categorized   since  such persons are prone to accidents whilst in their employment.  The bank was collected premium for the Suraksha Personal Accident Coverage.  It is a group policy purchased by the City Bank from  TATA AIG Life Insurance Company and Royal Sundaram Alliance Company Ltd.  The brochure contains the details of  exclusion Clause  as contained  in the policy.  The bank is only the purchaser of the policy meant  to save the credit card holders and is collecting premium on behalf of the Insurance Company.  The Bank had collected the  necessary papers from the complainant and did everything to help the complainant to avail Insurance claim if entitled.  The bank only acts   a payment mechanism to help the customers to avail a variety of Insurance policies from other companies as well.   It is also specifically mentioned in the card member agreement under the Clause of  “Insurance Benefits” that the City Bank may at any time without giving any notice thereof to the member suspend, withdraw or cancel the benefits of such insurance coverage and there will be no binding obligations on City Bank to continue this benefit.  The City Bank has no role in processing the claim  papers.   The alleged deficiency in service is denied.   

          4. The  third opposite party/Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd; has filed version contending that as mentioned in the letter dated 31.5.05 as per Condition No.4 Clause (c ) under “Exceptions”  persons engaged in Aviation are not covered under the policy.  Hence there is no cause of action against the third opposite party.

          5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P 11 and   D1.

          6. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellants that opposite parties 1 and 2 have not provided the details of the policy to the complainants.  They have mentioned in Ext.P10 letter dated 8.4.05 that Air Accident Insurance has been recently  withdrawn from  the New India Insurance Company.  They have  not furnished the particulars as to the above insurance coverage.  It is pointed out that they     virtually did not contest and also did not cross examine PW1.  It is  also pointed out that the deceased was remitting  the premium till death  which  is evidenced by the documents produced. 

          7. We find that there is no dispute as to the payment of premium.  The Suraksha Credit Shield is with respect to the credit availed.  The same is not applicable in the instant case as  there is no case as to any  particular credit availed.    Ext.D1 is the copy of the policy produced as per which the Silver Card holders are  having the coverage of Rs.5 lakh for accidental death and for serious injuries.  It is a Group Insurance Policy.  Ext.D1 contains a Clause  under the heading “Exceptions”  to the effect that the company shall not be liable for payment of compensation in respect of death etc. (Clause 4 (c ) if the same happens while engaging in Aviation etc. in  air craft other than  as a passenger in the duly licensed standard type of air- craft anywhere in the world etc.  Evidently, the deceased was  working in the establishment as the operator of the Air craft and not as a passenger.  Only the passenger is covered as per Ext.D1 policy.

          8. It is also pointed out that the brochure produced by the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not seen marked.  In the brochure, we find that the City Bank is mentioned as the   Corporate Agent of Royal Sundaram Insurance Company Ltd.  Credit shield is up to 3 lakhs and Personal Accident Insurance up to 10 lakh.  We find that in the brochure also under the heading “Exclusions” it is specifically mentioned that only passengers of aircraft are covered.  In view of the above exclusion Clause in Ext.D1, we find that the claim of the complainant cannot be sustained.  Of-course Ext.A10 letter has not been properly explained.  There is also nothing to show that the complainant has contacted the New India Insurance Company  and the above company has also not been made a party.          In the circumstances, we find that no interference   the order of the Forum is called for. 

          9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER