Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/315

Suman Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s ICICI Lombard - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Kumar

25 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  315 dated 10.08.2022.                                       Date of decision: 25.10.2024. 

 

Suman Devi wife of Sanjeev Kumar, resient of House No.304, Balaji Enclave, Near H.P. Gas Godown Ramgarh to Sua Road, Village Jandiali, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.141011. M:7087126209.

                                                Versus

  1. M/s. ICICI Lombard, Regd. Office: 414, Veer Sabrar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025 through its M.D./Manager.400025.
  2. M/s. ICICI Lombard, Mall Road, Ludhiana, through its Manager.141002.
  3. DCB Bank Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Director/Manager/Managing Person.141002.                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Rahul Rajput, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant along with her husband Sh. Sanjeev Kumar took housing loan of Rs.10,60,000/- vide loan account bearing No.DRHLLUD00522652 from OP3. OP3 took signatures of the complainant on various blank papers for completion of loan formalities. At the time of sanctioning loan, officials of OP3 suggested the complainant and her husband to secure the loan by taking insurance and in case of any mis-happening to adjust the policy amount in the loan account. Upon which the complainant and her husband agreed and OP3 also took her signatures on blank papers for insurance policy on the behest of OP1 and OP2. The complainant stated that the loan of Rs.10,60,000/- was sanctioned on 25.02.2021 and a policy No.4080/DCB/216733550/00 was delivered to them. Before insurance, the husband of the complainant was not suffering from any disease and was hale and hearty. According to the complainant, they paid the instalments of loan regularly but suddenly her husband was got infected of COVID due to which he died on 03.05.2021 in Civil hospital, Ludhiana. Information was given to OP2 along with relevant documents. OP2  vide letter dated 11.06.2021 demanded some more documents to process the claim which were supplied by the complainant. The complainant further stated that on 03.03.2022 OPs sent a letter vide which OP2 rejected her claim on false and frivolous grounds. The complainant time and again approached OP2 with request to pass her claim but the officials of OP2 refused to accept her request due to which the complainant suffered mental tension and agony. The complainant served a legal notice to the OPs but no reply was received. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to pass/release the claim of Rs.7,60,270/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant being estopped by her own act and conduct; concealment of material facts etc. OP1 and OP2 stated that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar resident of Jandiali, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana was beneficiary under Group Secure Mind policy No.4080/DCB/216733550/000 having validity from 27.02.2021 to 26.02.2026 obtained from OP3 i.e. DCB for their customers from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. with Suman Devi as nominee in loan account No.DRBLLUDO0522652 covering the risks under the head Insured Event Applicable, which is reproduced as under:-

Section

Insured Event Applicable

Sum Insured (Rs.)

1.Major Medical Illness and Procedures

a) First diagnosis of the below mentioned illnesses more specifically described below:-

1. Cancer of specified severity

2. Kidney failure requiring regular dialysis

3. Multiple Sclerosis with persisting symptoms

4. Benign brain tumor

5. Parkinson’s disease before the age of 50 years

6. Alzheimer's disease before the age of 50 years

7. End stage liver disease

b) Undergoing for the first time of the following surgical procedures, more specifically described below:-

1. Major organ/bone marrow transplant

2. Open heart replacement or repair of heart valves

3. Open chest CABG

4. Surgery of aorta

c) Occurrence for the first time of the following medical events more specifically described below:-

1. Stroke resulting in permanent symptoms

2. Permanent paralysis of limbs

3. First heart attack of specified severity.

4. Major burns

5. Loss of speech

6. Deafness

7. Coma of specified severity

760270

2.Personal Accident

a) Death of the insured on account of an accident

b) Permanent total disablement of the insured due to accident

 

 

According to OP1 and OP2, it is one of the policy conditions i.e. Policy wording part II of the schedule 2.1 section 1(Major Medical Illnesses and Procedures). Further it is one of the conditions in the policy wording Section B 2.2 exclusions which is applicable to benefit to under section B:

“The company shall not be liable to make any payment for any claim under Benefit 2 of Section B of this policy in respect of an insured person, directly or indirectly for, caused by, arising from or in any way attributable to any of the following:

Any critical illness where the symptoms indicative of such critical illness have first manifested or first occurred prior to the Risk Inception Date or arisen within first 90 days of commencement of the period of cover.”

OP1 and OP2 further stated that the complainant submitted the medical record and death summary of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana dated 03.05.2021 pertaining to the death of Sanjeev Kumar. After scrutinizing the documents submitted by the complainant including the death summary dated 03.05.2021, it was observed that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar was hospitalized for Bilateral COVID Pneumonitis and respiratory failure and was treated for the same. As per death summary issued by Civil Hospital, Ludhiana the cause of death of Sanjeev Kumar is Covid-19 positive and Pneumonitis and respiratory failure and the same is not covered under the critical illness and that the claim is lodged within three months of the commencement of the policy which starts from 27.02.2021. After scrutinizing the documents placed in the claim file and after due application of mind by their officials in terms of insurance policy obtained by deceased Sanjeev Kumar, the claim of the complainant arisen on account of death of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar was repudiated as no claim vide letter dated 03.03.2022 since Sh. Sanjeev Kumar was treated for bilateral Covid Pneumonitis and respiratory failure and had died of Covid Pneumonitis and the claim falls within first 3 months (90 days) of the commencement of the policy with starting date as 27.02.2021 and as such the claim falls outside the purview of policy terms and conditions. The claim of Sanjeev Kumar was repudiated due to non-coverage under the policy vide repudiation letter dated 03.03.2022, which is reproduced as under:-

"Refer the claims documents submitted by you for the above mentioned claim number. On scrutiny of the documents, we regret to inform you that the claim stands rejected for the following reason(s) as per the policy terms and condition:

Sl No.

Policy Condition

Cause (s)

1.

Policy wording Section B 2.2: Exclusions applicable to Benefit 2 under Section B

The company shall not be liable to make any payment for any claim under Benefit 2 of Section B of this policy in respect of an insured person, directly or indirectly for, caused by, arising from or in any way attributable to any of the following:

Any critical illness where the symptoms indicative of such critical illness have first manifested or first occurred prior to the Risk Inception Date or arisen within first 90 days of commencement of the period of cover.

Remarks

As per death summary of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana dated 03 May 2021, insured was hospitalized for Bilateral Covid Pneumonitis and Respiratory Failure on 03 May, 2021 which falls within first three months of the commencement of the policy start date i.e. 27 Feb 2021. Hence the claim falls outside the purview of policy terms and conditions.

OP1 and OP2 further stated that the repudiation is issued on the facts as presently known to them and on the basis of policy terms and conditions. According to OP1 and OP2, the claim was rightly repudiated on the legal and valid grounds as per terms and conditions of the policy.

                   On merits, OP1 and OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, OP1 and OP2 averred that the on receipt of claim from the complainant, she was called upon vide letter dated 11.06.2021 followed with reminder dated 26.06.2021 to supply the documents, which are reproduced as under:-

The complainant failed to supply the documents and the claim file was closed as no claim vide letter dated 06.09.2021 on the grounds of non-submission of documents but later on the complainant supplied the documents, on receipt of which and after due application of mind by their officials, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 03.03.2022 on legal and valid grounds. OP1 and OP2 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                OP3 filed separate written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections/submissions on the grounds of maintainability; the complaint being false, frivolous, devoid of any merits and is an abuse of process of law; suppression of material facts; the complainant has not approached with clean hands; the complainant is not a Consumer of OP3; lack of cause of action etc. OP3 stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP3 as her husband applied and got insurance policy from OP1 and OP2 and further OP3 has been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation. The policy was availed after filing the proposal form after understanding the significance of the proposed contract. OP3 further stated that it gathered information from OP1 and OP2 and found that insurance policy No.4080/DCB/216733550/00/000 was issued on 28.02.2021 for a period of five years. In case there is any issue relating to insurance policy etc. the complainant must have reached or contacted OP1 and OP2. 

                   On merits, OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and brief facts of the case. OP3 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C13 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Divyam Suri, Manager Legal of OP1 and OP2 office at Chandigarh along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R10 and closed the evidence. 

                   The counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA/3 of Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Legal Officer of OP3 along with document Ex. R3/1 is the power of attorney and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statements, affidavits and documents produced on record by the parties.

7.                Admittedly, on 11.02.2021, husband of the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (Deceased Life Assured “DLA”) got sanctioned loan of Rs.10,60,000/- from OP3 Bank. To secure the said loan, DLA got an insurance policy Ex. C1 = Ex. R1 from OP1 and OP2 under Group Safeguard Insurance plan having policy tenure of five years i.e. from 27.02.2021 to 26.02.2026 against a total premium of Rs.18,310/-.

                   Unfortunately, on 03.05.2021, the DLA Sanejev Kumar died at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana due to Covid-19 positive and the complainant submitted the claim with OP1 and OP2 for disbursal of sum assured in order to adjust the same towards the outstanding loan amount. However, OP1 and OP2 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter dated 03.03.2022 Ex. C6 = Ex. R1. The operative part of repudiation letter dated 03.03.2022 is reproduced as under:-

“Refer the claims documents submitted by you for the above-mentioned claim number. On scrutiny of the documents, we regret to inform you that the claim stands rejected for the following reason(s) as per the policy terms & conditions.

SL No.

Policy Condition

Clause(s)

1

Policy wording Section B 2.2:Exclusions applicable to Benefit 2 under Section B

The company shall not be liable to make any payment for any claim under Benefit 2 of Section B of this Policy in respect of an Insured Person, directly or indirectly for, caused by, arising from or in any way attributable to any of the following:

Any critical Illness where the symptoms indicative of such Critical Illness have first manifested or first occurred prior to the Risk Inception Date or arisen within first 90 days of commencement of the Period of Cover.

Remarks

As per Death Summary of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana dated 03 May 2021, Insured was hospitalized for Bilateral Covid Pneumonitis and Respiratory Failure on 03 May 2021, which falls within first three months of the commencement of the policy start date i.e. 27 Feb 2021.  Hence the claim falls outside the purview of Policy Terms and Conditions.

 

8.                As per death summary dated 03.05.2021 issued Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, the insured Sanjeev Kumar died due to B/L Covid with Pneumonitis, respiratory failure and sudden cardiac arrest. As per the terms and conditions of the policy Ex. C1 = Ex. R1, the policy covered the specific diseases mentioned hereinbefore in para No.7 of the judgment.

9.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has drawn attention of this Commission to the guidelines dated 23.03.2020 and 04.03.2020 issued by IRDA.  We have considered the guidelines of IRDA referred to by the counsel for the OPs whereby the insurance cases were exhorted to deal with and reimburse Covid-19 related claims expeditiously. However, these guidelines or instructions issued by IRDA cannot be read in addition or derogation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Even otherwise, there is no mention in these instructions that Covid-19 should be treated as critical illness in addition to the other critical illnesses mentioned in the insurance policies. Therefore, on the basis of IRDA instructions dated 23.03.2020, 04.03.2020 and 30.03.2020, it cannot be said that death by Covid-19 or Pneumonia should be treated as death from critical illness. A perusal of the instructions further reveals that by way of these instructions, the insurance companies were simply directed to disburse the medical claims of Covid patients as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that during the Covid period people in general were in distress and were not in position to pay the hospital expenses due to pandemic conditions. Further Sanjeev Kumar died at the age of about 33 years after 67 days from the date of assumption of risk and the OPs had rightly invoked the exclusion clause.

10.              It is settled law that the terms of insurance policy have to be strictly construed as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is a binding contract between the parties and nothing can be added or subtracted by giving a different meaning to the words mentioned therein. In this regard, reference can be made to 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 90 in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs The Chief Electoral Officer and others whereby the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has made the following observations:-

“26. We would first like to elucidate the principles on which a claim under any insurance policy is examined. It is trite to say that the terms of the insurance policy are to be strictly construed. 

27. The insurance contracts are in the nature of special class of contracts having distinctive features such as utmost good faith, insurable interest, indemnity subrogation, contribution and proximate cause which are common to all types of insurances. Each class of insurance also has individual features of its own. The law governing insurance contracts is thus to be studied in three parts, namely, (1) general characteristics of insurance contracts, as contracts; (2) special characteristics of insurance contracts, as contracts of insurance, and (3) individual characteristics of each class of insurance.

 28. Now turning to some of the judicial pronouncements, wherein it has been opined that the words used in a contract of insurance must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words (Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) 2010 SCC Online SC 1148. Insurance contracts are in the nature where exceptions cannot be made on ground of equity and the Courts ought not to interfere with the terms of an insurance agreement (Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited vs. Garg Sons International) 2014(1) SCC 686. 

29. This Court in Vikram Greentech India Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.2002(5) SCC 599 reiterated that the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are. Consequently, the terms 8 Justice K Kannan, Principles of Insurance Law Chapter 3 (Volume 1, 10th ed. 2017, pg. 31) 9 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1148 10 2014 1 SCC 686 11 (2009) 5 SCC 599 6 of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the insurance company must also be read strictly. 

30. In several other judgments, this court has held that the insurance contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonise the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon.” 

 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period. 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.