Delhi

New Delhi

CC/760/2013

Narinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Oct 2020

ORDER

 

NEW DELHI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.760/2013                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Ms. NarinderKaur,

W/o Sh. Balraj Singh,

R/o G-3, Jagat Puri,

Gurudwara Wali Gali, Delhi-51.

                                                ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1.   HDFC ERGO General  Insurance Company Ltd.

Ground Floor, AmbaDeepa Building-14,

Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

2.          Housing Development Finance,

Corporation Ltd.,

Ansal ‘s Fortune Arcade,

Sector 18, Noida.

 

3.        Corporate Office:

HDFC ERGO GeneralInsurance Company Ltd.

                 6^th Floor , Leela Business Park,

Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.

 

                                                                                                                                                         ….......OPPOSITE PARTIES

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the OP had issued a procedure policy No.2918200331868200000 to the complainant for the period 17.9.2012 to 16.9.2017 and the OP received total premium amount of Rs.2,80,004/- from the complainant.  At the time of issuing the above policy, Sh. Prashant, representative of OP  received two cheques of Rs.840/ and Rs.3340/- respectively  as a processing fee and pre EMI premium.  The complainant reported this matter to HDFC at NOIDA office, who assured the complainant the this mistake would be correct immediately  but after a long time, the said amount was adjusted in Pre EMI of December 2012.  It is alleged by the complainant the OP Co.  had never explained him anything  regarding the policy, its coverage and the premium as well as the cancellation procedure etc. After receiving the copy  of policy agreement, she came to know that the loan for house was of 12 years  but the policy was issued for five years only.  Hence, the complainant requested the OPs to cancel the policy  just after the payment of ECS of October 2012 and the Executing of OPs assured her that the said policy would be cancelled.  The complainant sent a letter dt. 19.11.2012 and various  emails to the Ops regarding the cancellation of the policy but all in vain. The complainant has also personally approached the office of OPs and requested to cancel the policy but OP did not pay any heed towards her request.  The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 17.7.2013 to the OPs but the Ops have neither comply the same nor had replied. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forums for redressal of her grievance.

2.     Notices were sent to the OPs.  None appeared on behalf of OP-2, therefore it was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dt.16.5.2014 by our predecessor bench.

3.     Complaint was contested by OP-1 & 3. In its reply it was admitted that the complainant was issued the  policy referred above. It is stated that there  is no deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on their part.  It is further stated that the insurance policy is a contract made in utmost good faith and the contract is entered into by both the parties on the basis of the  information provided by the proposer. It is further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material fact that upon receipt of request for cancellation of policy, the policy issued to the complainant was cancelled on pro-rata basis and a premium amount of Rs.2,17,382/- was duly refunded to the complainant on 1.2.2013. The issued regarding the deduction of EMIs is not related  of OP-1 & 3 as the same has been deducted by HDFC Bank i.e. OP-2, hence, OP-2 is liable regarding the same and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint on the above grounds.. 

4.     Complainant and OP-1 & 3 filed their evidence by way of affidavits. Parties also filed   written arguments.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     Perusal of the file shows that the loan was disbursed to the complainant in year 2012 along with the policy in question.  After receipt of the policy, the complainant approached OP-1 &3 to cancel the policy.  On her request, the policy was cancelled  on pro-rata basis and a premium amount of Rs.2,17,382/- was duly refunded to the complainant on 1.2.2013.

 

7.     In her prayer clause, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to cancel the policy and refund the whole premium amount of Rs.2,80,004/-.

 

8.     As per policy terms and conditions, The OP Insurance Co. accepted the request of the complainant, the OP cancelled the policy and sent the balance premium  to the complainant.  The balance premium was calculated by the OPs as per the terms and conditions of the policy.   Insurance is a contract between the insured and insurer and both the parties are bound by the terms contained therein. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. VinodPuri as reported in I [2014] CPJ 341 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

Insurance contract has to be construed like any other contract on basis of its terms and conditions and outside aid for construction of insurance policy is impermissible.

 9.    The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sony Cheryan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 is pleased to hold as under:

The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy.

 10.   Similarly in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and Anr., reported in (1996) 3 SCR, 500, the Constitution Bench has observed that the policy document being a contract and it has to be read strictly. It was observed:

In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however, reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and the cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for fire and extended to cover floor, cyclone etc. had come into being.

11.    The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Ind Swift Ltd. versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in IV[2012] CPJ 148 (NC) is pleased to rule as under:

Construction of the policy is to be construed strictly as per the terms and conditions of the policy document which is binding contract between the parties and nothing can be added or subtracted by different meaning.

 12.   Similarly in LIC versus BanwarilalYadav reported in IV[2013] CPJ 38 (NC) the Hon’ble NCDRC observed as under:

“Forum has no jurisdiction to go beyond terms and conditions of the Policy.”

 13.   The NCDRC in yet another matter in the matter of Morien Chemicals Ltd. versus UCO Bank reported in III [2013] CPJ 261 (NC) is pleased to hold as under:

“Insurance Company is not liable to pay damages which are not covered under the policy.”

 14.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and  discussion heard, we are of the considered view that there exists no infirmity on the part of Insurance Company as the balance premium was calculated as per the terms and conditions of the policy and courts are not meant to add or delete the terms of contract.  The above cited judgments  are squarely applicable in the present case. 

15.    In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to hold that the refund of the balance premium to the complainant to the tune of  Rs.2,17,352/-  against the cancelled policy was justified.  We  find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 12/10/2020.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

                                                       

 

                                                        (H M VYAS)

                                                         MEMBER