BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 1282/2019 & 321/2020
APPEAL NO.1282/2019
LIC of India, Rept. by its Secretary Legal Legal Cell ZO Unit, Hayes Road, Bangalore 25. (By Sri Rohith Gowda) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Smt. N. Sudha Nair, W/o A. Pambavasan, Aged about 28 years, | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Sri A. Pambavasan, S/o Late P. Kuttikrishnan Nair, Major, Both are residing at Govinda Nivasa, No.596/A-A, 9th Cross, Triveni Road, Yeshwanthpuram, Bengaluru 560 022. (By Sri Janardhan Reddy for R-1 & 2) | |
3. | The Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank of India, Malleshwaram, 18th Cross Branch, Malleshwaram, 18th Cross Branch, Bengaluru 560 055. (Served absent) | |
APPEAL NO.321/2020
Syndicate Bank, Malleshwaram 18th Cross Branch, Margosa Road, Bengaluru 560 055, Represented by its Chief Manager Sri Aman Gupta, S/o Lalchand Gupta, Aged about 33 years. (By Sri M. Mohan Rao) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Smt. N. Sudha Nair, W/o A. Pambavasan, Aged about 58 years, | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | Sri A. Pambavasan, S/o Late P. Kutti Krishnan Nair, Major by age, Both are residing at No.596/A-A, Govinda Nivas, 9th Cross, Triveni Road, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru 560 022. (By Sri Janardhan Reddy for R-1 & 2) | |
3. | Life Insurance Corporation of India, Claims Department, Divisional Office, Jayachamarajendra Road, Bengaluru 560 002, Represented by its Manager. | |
COMMON ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have preferred Appeal Nos.1282/2019 & 321/2020 respectively being aggrieved by the Order dt.23.07.2019 passed in CC.No.814/2018 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. As both the appeals are arisen out of the same order, they are clubbed together and being disposed-of by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the son of the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 one Mr. Sachin, aged about 21 years was working as Basketball Coach at A.C. School who is earning Rs.29,700/- per month and had obtained Accident Death Disability Benefit Rider” policy bearing No.617501529 from Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.946/- towards premium was payable every month commencing from 09.09.2015 and opted for ECS through Opposite Party No.2 bank and he was regular in paying premiums towards the policy. Such being the case, on 17.07.2017 he met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. After postmortem, the complainants cremated their son subsequently they claimed for policy amount through Opposite Party No.1 by virture of the policy, but, the claim was repudiated for the reason that the deceased/insured had not paid three premiums commencing from May 2017 to July 2017 and shown inability to pay the assured amount. The complainants alleged deficiency in service against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 stating that the deceased/insured had sufficient balance in Opposite Party No.2 bank for payment of premiums. Inspite of that the premiums were not paid towards the policy for the last three months, hence, filed a complaint before the District Commission.
3. In Appeal No.321/2020, the appellant submitted that there was no sufficient balance in the SB account maintained by the deceased/insured and he had operated his SB account till 10.07.2007. After 15.05.2017, he deposited Rs.1,000/-, on 19.06.2017 he deposited Rs.1,000/-, on 10.07.2017 he withdrawn Rs.500/-, on 25.06.2017 withdrawn Rs.500/-, on 28.06.2017 withdrawn Rs.300/- and on 29.06.2017 withdrawn Rs.500/-. Thus these operations are carried out by account holder himself during his life time and LIC premiums were not debited on particular date as per the ECS mandate due to insufficient funds. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank. Inspite of that the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed both the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the amount.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are in appeal. Heard the arguments of both parties.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, we noticed here that the deceased son of the complainant Nos.1 & 2 had obtained Accident Death and Disability Benefit Rider policy bearing No.617501529 he had opted ECS for payment of the premium through Opposite Party No.2 bank. Since inception of the policy, the premium was deducted through ECS. Unfortunately, on 17.07.2017 the son of the complainants met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. The complainants have claimed for the policy amount to the Opposite Party No.1, but, the Opposite Party No.1 repudiated the claim for the reason for nonpayment of the premiums of the last three months commencing from May 2017 to July 2017. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2/appellant in Appeal No.321/2020 stated that there was no sufficient balance in the SB account maintained by the life assured at the time of ECS payment commencing from May 2017. Due to which, the ECS mandate was not completed and submits that there was no deficiency in service.
6. We noticed here that the premium was paid regularly since inception till May 2017 and on 17.07.2017 the life assured was succumbed to injuries due to accident. The Opposite Party No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant for nonpayment of the last three premiums which according to us amounts to deficiency in service.
7. The Opposite Party No.1 being an indemnifier would have deducted the unpaid premiums at the time of settlement of the claim instead of repudiating the claim on flimsy grounds. Here we noticed that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 bank for non-payment of the premiums due to insufficient funds whereas the District Commission has directed both the Opposite Parties to pay the assured amount. We are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No.1/Insurance Company is solely responsible for the payment of the assured amount to the complainants by deducting the unpaid last three premiums. As such the Order passed by the District Commission requires modification. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeal Nos. 1282/2019 and 321/2020 are disposed-of.
The Order dt.23.07.2019 passed in CC.No.814/2018 on the file of the Bangalore Urban District Commission is hereby modified as under;
The Opposite Party No.1 insurance company in Appeal No.1282/2019 is directed to pay an assured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with benefit if any after deducting the unpaid three premiums to the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realization.
The Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for repudiating the genuine claim of the complainants along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.
The amount in deposit in Appeal No.1282/2019 shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainants.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant in Appeal No.321/2020.
Keep the original order of in Appeal No.1282/2019 and a copy of the same in Appeal No.321/2020.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
