Delhi

New Delhi

CC/165/2009

Deepanshu Kumar & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Citi Bank - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.165/2009                             Dated:

In the matter of:

1.    Mr. Deepanshu Kumar,

S/o Late Pradeep Kumar.

 

2.    Mrs. Shalini Kumari,

D/o Late Pradeep Kumar

 

3.     Mrs. Preeti Kumari,

D/o Late Pradeep Kumar

 

All R/o 48/7, Bungalow Road,

Kamla Nagar, Delhi-07.

                           ……..COMPLAINANTS

VERSUS

Citi Bank,

CitiBank, N.A.

Customer Services Unit,

PO Box 4830,

Anna Salai PO

Chennai-600 002.

                      Opposite Parties

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the father of the complainant was having Citi Bank Cash Back card bearing No.4385 8798 2139 0006 200.  The customer of this card was having Personal Accident Insurance covered upto Rs.25 lacs in case of unfortunate death as a result of accident.  The above said amount was Rs.18.75 lacs in case, customer met with an accident by two wheeler.  In addition to this, the credit card user was also have other free insurance package giving the further protection of Rs.2.5 lacs to the credit card holder.

2.     The parents of the complainant met with an accident on 9.9.2006 while driving on motorcycle having registration No.DL7SU4395.  The mother of the complainant died on the spot and father was declared dead on 11.9.2006.  The complainant approached OP bank for releasing the insurance amount.  The OP bank vide letter dt. 1.5.2008 denied the  payment on the ground that the father of the complainant telephonically asked the OP bank for cancellation of the policy on 24.11.2004, hence, OP is not liable to pay the insured amount.  The OP bank in this letter also admitted the fact that he had already given  the outstanding dues of Rs.1,45,929.52 availed on the credit card in question. It is further stated that in the letter dt. 1.5.2008, the OP itself admitted that as a special gesture they are ready to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit in the name of the complainant and the interest on this deposit be utilized for further education of the complainant.  Despite having the insurance cover with the credit card in question, the OP arbitrarily refused to release the insured amount, this act of OP amounts to deficiency in services on its part. The complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance. 

 3.    Complaint has been contested by the OP. In its reply OP stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of laws as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts.   It is stated that no premium was debited toward the insurance policy with cash back card bearing No.4385 8798 2139 0006 200. It is further submitted that the complainant father had availed the insurance cover under different card by the name of City Bank MTV Card bearing NO.5546 1900 3734 8009, but the same was also cancelled by the complainant’s father on 24.11.2004 i.e. before his death, hence, no question of payment of insurance amount arose and further prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

 

5.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

6.     Some facts are not disputed by the parties such as the credit card in question as well as the accidental death of credit card holder. The complainant has argued in his complaint that his father was a  credit card holder of the OP bank vide card bearing No.4385 8798 2139 0006 200.  It is further argued that alongwith the aforesaid card an insurance covered to the tune of Rs.18.75 lacs was also given to his father in case of accidental death, hence, he is entitled for the relief claim.

 

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP that Citi Bank is providing the insurance plan to its credit card holder subject to the  payment of premium of Rs.4.50/- per day.  The OP bank denied the claim on  the ground that the insurance cover was already cancelled by the father of the complainant before his death. As no payment of the premium was made by the deceased card holder, the insurance cover is not in existence at the time of death. To substantiate his contention he has drawn our attention towards the documents which contained the details of the insurance covered provided to the Citi Bank Credit Card holders. 

 

8.     Perusal of the aforesaid documents make it clear that  The complainant has failed to place on record any document which shows that for availing the insurance cover his father has paid a premium of Rs.4.50/-per day to the OP bank or has given any direction to the bank to deduct the premium amount from his account.  In such a circumstances, we are of the considered view that since no payment of premium had been made, no insurance policy in the name of the deceased cared holder was in existence at the time of his death. 

 

9.     In view of the above discussion,  the rejection of the claim of the complainant by OP bank is justified.  Therefore, we find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 15/01/2020. 

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

 

             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                   (HM VYAS)

                 MEMBER                                                      MEMBER