BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 24^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OPs to refund sum of Rs.41,93,548/- with interest of 24% p.a., to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- sufferings and loss and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant stated in her complaint that the husband of the complainant, late Sri. S Shiva purchased a property of north side of property bearing site No.52, Khata No.853 of SrigandhadaKavalu, then in Ward No.70 of Dasarahalli Town Municipality and presently under BBMP, ward No.34 situated in YeshwanthpuraHobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The site measuring 40X15 with 8 square RCC roofed building with redoxide flooring having purchased the same under sale deed dated 17.11.2018.

3. During the purchase of schedule property, husband of complainant approached OP No.2 for financial assistance. OP NO.2 representative contacted the husband of the complainant and offered to grant housing loan of Rs.30,97,500/- for purchase of residential property. Accordingly on 11.10.2018, loan was granted in favour of husband of complainant. The monthly installment was fixed as Rs.29,007/- and interest payable was 9% p.a. with repayment tenure of 216 months. At the time of granting loan, OP No.2 has made complainant as a co-applicant for the said loan along with the husband of the complainant. OP No.2 was well aware that complainant is unemployed at the time of granting loan, she was home maker and has no independent income of her own, to repay the loan amount to OP No.2.

4. Complainant further stated that, at the time of granting housing loan, OP No.2 insisted to obtain building insurance from OP No.4 against earthquake, fire and shock in respect of the schedule property. Accordinlgy complainant’s husband has obtained building insurance policy from OP No.4 in vide policy No.19013113630000 in the name of husband of the complainant. The said policy is for the period from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2038 against the earthquake, fire, riot, strike malicious damage of building property with sum assured of Rs.30,00,000/- and premium of Rs.24,780/- was paid by the husband of the complainant. Similarly at the time of granting housing loan, OP No.2 insisted to take another policy under Group Credit Secure Plus, from OP NO.4. Complainant’s husband obtained the above said policy in policy No.02359879240002950000 for sum assured of Rs.41,93,548/- in the name of complainant’s husband, a premium of Rs.61,360/- was paid by him, for the period from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2023. Base policy coverage and benefits under the said policy is:

a) Education benefit – 10% of principal sum insured or

                                Rs.5,00,000/- whichever is over.

b) Accidental death ­– Rs.41,93,548/-

c) Permanent total disability – Rs.41,93,548/-

5. Complainant further stated that as similarly at the time of granting housing loan, OP No.2 insisted to take another policy under group credit secure plus from OP No.4 in favour of complainant. Accordingly husband of complainant has obtained another insurance policy in favour complainant in vide policy No. 02359879240002930000 for sum assured of Rs.41,93,548/-, the premium of Rs.61,360/- was paid by husband of complainant. The policy period from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2023 and the coverage is as mentioned above. She stated that for selling of the above said 3 policies, OP No.2&2 had received commission from OP No.3. The above 3 policies obtained by complainant and her husband only on instigation of OP No.2. Complainant altogether paid premium of Rs.1,47,500/- to OP No.4.

6. She stated during 2021, her husband developed Acute Exacerbation of COPD and succumbed on 22.12.2022. The probable cause of death is opined to be a sudden cardiac arrest. On 22.12.2022, when the complainant taking her husband to hospital, he expressed that he got severe chest pain only. When they reached only, he was no more. According to the doctor, the cause of death is due to sudden cardiac arrest. On account of death of complainant’s husband, she preferred claim of benefit arising out of policy No. 02359879240002930000 obtained from OP No.3 in the name of S. Shiva, husband of complainant on 30.01.2023 along with necessary documents. The claim has been registered with OP No.3, in claim No. 0822371558A, PNB Housing Finance Limited. OP No.3 sent E-mail on 08.03.2023, informed that claim has been carefully perused and stated that as per True Life Specialty Hospital insured Mr. Shiva was under treatment for COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and expire on 22.12.2022. Further stated that the policy opted by insurance has coverage of accidental death, permanent partial disability, permanent total disability, educational disability, monthly EMI benefit, house alteration and vehicle modification benefit, home protection benefit, accidental dismemberment, loss of job, ATM assault and robbery, key replacement coverage, lost wallet coverage. Further complainant has been informed that the sickness claim if therefore beyond the scope of coverage of policy, therefore OP No.3 regret their inability to assume any liability for the claim made by the complainant. Hence the claim made by the complainant was declined to honor.

7. At the time of issuing said policy, representative of OP No.3 has assured that if any accident or accidental death is happened to insured, a sum assured will be credited to nominee’s account. OP No.1&2 representative has informed that the policy covers any accident or accidental death is occurred to insure the claim amount will be adjusted to outstanding due and balance amount will be returned to nominee. They further assured that they will assist if any claim is required but OPs No.1&2 are not responding now and even not assisting to the complainant for honoring the claim of the complainant. OP No.3&4 failed to note that husband of complainant was hale and healthy and is not suffering from any diseases at the time of obtaining the policy i.e. in the year 2018. The said COPD attacked to husband of the complainant only in the year 2021 that too after Covid pandemic and the cause of death is due to sudden cardiac arrest. They ought to have appreciated that insured was under continuous treatment and monitoring for COPD, could not have been cause of death of the insured. He had died of cardiac arrest in the normal course and same is not related to the COPD condition of the insured.

8. Complainant further stated that, her husband was the only bread earner of the family, was in shock for a sudden loss of her husband. Further she is unemployed and she doesn’t have any income of her own and she is facing lot of problems to lead her day to day life. She got only 2 daughters, got married. She stated that she is not in capacity to pay the monthly EMI of Rs.29,007/- to OP No.2. As per the statement of account dated 13.03.2023 a sum of Rs.27,97,564/- is shown as due towards the principle amount and sum of Rs.53,458/- is shown as due towards interest accrued. She further stated that she borrowed loan from her friends and relatives and pledged some gold ornaments, was paid EMI from January 2023 to March 2023 to OP No.2. OP No.3 and 4 being insurance company have completely forgotten the very object of the insurance policy, have rejected the claim of the complainant. By virtue of rejection of the claim, complainant alleged that OPs have no business ethics and extremely poor understanding of both the insurance mechanism and law of land. OP rejected the claim of the complainant without adequate and rational reasons. She repeatedly requested for a settlement of her claim for death benefit of her husband, had not been received by the OP No.3 & 4.

9. Complainant stated that she caused legal notice dated 06.04.2023, calling upon OPs No.3 to 4 for disbursementof sum assured of Rs.41,93,548/- to complainant but OP neither complied the claim nor replied to the legal notice, caused deficiency of service. The same has been addressed to OP No.1&2 but not served, returned back to complainant. Due to the refusal to settle the claim, complainant is suffering mentally as well as humiliation. Complainant alleged that at the time of obtaining the policy from the OPs, marketing executives of OPs sweetly promised so many things which include the refund of the medical expenses and death benefits that would be incurred by the complainant and her family members covered under the policy. In spite of their liability to disperse death benefit of her husband they are very arrogant to fulfill their promises. It is clear a criminal breach of trust and she alleged that OPs are taking advantage of innocence of innocent people like complainant and enriching themselves. She further alleged that actions of OPs in keeping the money of complainant is nothing but unjust enrichment. She has suffered a considerable loss mentally, as also incurred substantial loss, monetarily in making lengthy correspondence with the OPs and visiting expenses caused financial loss too. Non-payment of a claim amount, amounts to deficiency of service and gross negligence on the part of OPs No.1 to 4 in settling the claim of the complainant within reasonable time. Hence, OPs are liable to pay the claim of the complainant and also compensate for the deficiency of service with litigation cost. Hence this complaint.

10. OP No.1&2 appeared through its counsel and filed their statement of objections along with 2 documents. OP NO.3 and 4 also appeared through their counsels, filed their statement of objections. OP No.1&2 stated in their version that the complaint itself is misconceived and frivolous one and denied the allegations made in the complaint. OP No.1&2 admitted that complainants husband has availed housing loan bearing No. HOU/MLS/0918/578442, its sanction dated 11.10.2018 for sum of Rs.30,97,500/- from OP No.1&2. Further stated that complainant presently having an outstanding of Rs.27,96,983/- as on 17.08.2023 payable to OP No.1&2 for the loan availed by complainant’s husband. OP No.1&2 contends that in case the insurance policy availed by complainant and her husband from OP No.3&4, availed from OP No.1&2, in such case the deficiency of service provided by OP No.3&4 against insurance policy availed by complainant’s husband, whereas there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1&2. It further contended that OP No.1&2 are financial institution and OP No.3&4 are insurance company, are two different legal entities. The loan taken from OP No.1&2 having relation with complainant that the debtor and creditor, the transactions are only specific contracts and do not fall within the preview of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore OP No.1&2 taken contention that complaiant has suppressed the material facts before this Hon’ble Commission. Hence placed to dismiss the complaint with the exemplary cost.

11. In the version of OP No.3&4, OP denied the averments made in the complaint and stated that the present complaint is not maintainable either on the legal grounds or on the factual basis. Complainant suppressed the material and pertinent facts for the adjudication of the present complaint apart from filing vexatious and frivolous complaint. OP No.3 and 4 also denies the deficiency of service on their part. The policy of the insurance is the evidence of terms of agreement between the insured and insurer.

12. OP No.3&4 admits that, as per the records issued group credit secure plus insurance policy, bearing No.023598792400029500000 for the period of 5 years valid from 20.11.2018 till 19.11.2023. The policy is based on the statement of declaration provided at the time of proposal and the afore mentioned policy is group personal accident coverage issued to the loan holders of OP No.1&2, wherein complainant and her diseased husband were the co-borrowers of the loan from OP No.1&2. The liability of OP No.3&4 if any, shall only be limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and insurance. OP No.3&4 contends that complainant stated in her compliant about the death of her husband was that he developed a cute exacerbation of COPD and succumbed due to the same on 22.12.2022. OP NO.3&4 issued claim form and was registered in vide claim No.0822371558A.

13. After perusal of the claim form, and all the indoor papers of true life specialty hospital, it was found that insured Mr. Shiva was under the treatment of COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and succumbed to the same on 22.12.2022. It was found that the said cause of death and the sickness of insured was beyond the scope of coverage of policy. It is further submitted that as per the policy opted by the insured the coverage was for the following:

* Accidental death

* Permanent Partial Disability

* Permanent Total Disability

* Education Benefit

*Monthly EMI benefit

* House alteration and vehicle modification benefit

* Home Protection Benefit

* Accidental Dismemberment

*Loss of Job

14. OP No.3&4 stated in its version, that the policy obtained was a group personal accident policy which covers accidental death and permanent disability due to any accident caused external needs. However, in the instant case the insured died due to the afore mentioned sickness which is beyond the scope of the policy. Hence the claim is not possible. The medical documents submitted by the complainant, clearly indicated that cause of the death is not covered under the policy, wherein medical condition of insured was under the scope of the policy. Hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated in letter dated 27.03.2023. They also taken contention that complainant is legally not entitled to pray for payment of any claim benefit under the policy in view of the reasons narrated above. Therefore OP No.3 pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

15. At this stage, complainant filed affidavit evidence with Certificate U/S 65N of I.E Act. In support to the affidavit evidence complainant filed 16 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Complainant reiterated as stated in the complaint. One Shreevani .K, in charge legal collection from OP No.1, authorized to adduce evidence on behalf of OP No.1&2. Accordingly she filed affidavit evidence along with 2 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. One Pruthvi .K, filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.3&4 and filed supporting 5 documents which are marked as Ex.R.3 to Ex.R.7. Complainant have filed written arguments with 2 decisions and OP No.3& 4 have filed written arguments. We perused the documents on record and proceed to pass the following order.

16. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether the complainant proves the Unfair Trade Practice indulged by OPs?

iii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iv) What order?

17.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:-Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative.

Point No.3:-Partly affirmative.

Point No.4:-As per the final order.

REASONS

18. Point No.1&2:-These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

19. OP No.1 is a financial institution, OP No.2 is the regional office of OP No.1 (hereafter we refer OP No.1&2 as OP No.1). OP No.3 is insurance company, head office at Mumbai, OP No.4 is regional office of OP No.3 (hereafter we refer OP No.3&4 as OP No.3). It is not disputed that complainant’s husband purchased property at SrigandhadaKavalu, YeshwanthpuraHobli, Bangalore as per the Ex.P.1. He availed housing loan from OP No.1 and the same has been sanctioned on 11.10.2018 in vide loan reference number HOU/MLS/0918/578442 which is at Ex.P.2. In the said document, discloses that loan amount of Rs.29,50,000/- is sanctioned towards housing loan, the repayment term is for 216 months in floating rate of interest i.e. 9% p.a. on the date of execution of loan agreement. Complainant was agreed to pay Rs.29,007/- as EMI. In the said Ex.P.2, discloses about the insurance premium of Rs.1,47,500/- is also sanctioned along with the loan amount, which comes in total Rs.30,97,500/-. The aforementioned loan is sanctioned in favour of complainant and her husband. Complainant is co-borrower of loan. As complainant stated in her complaint that complainant was not aware about she is co-applicant in the loan agreement. Considering the statement of the complainant as she is not aware that she is part of loan agreement. When she is not employed and having no source of income of her own, banking institution like OP No.1 should not taken her into the agreement. Objective of including co-applicant in the loan or loan agreement, is both the applicants are liable to repay the loan amount especially primary borrower become defaulter, co-applicant is liable to repay the amount. Such being the case, when the complainant have no income source of her own, how the bank made her co-applicant is one of the question arised to discuss.

20. Complainant herself stated in her complaint that while granting the loan, OP No.2 insisted her husband to obtain building insurance from OP No.4. Then it is clearly exhibits that OP No.1 has introduced OP No.3&4 to obtain insurance against loan. The same has been exhibited in the Ex.P.2 that while sanctioning the loan, OP No.1 has included the insurance premium also in the said loan amount means OP No.1&2 have well aware that complainant and her husband are going for insurance, with whom OP 1 and 2 have tie up with OP No.3&4. That is the reason OP No.1 insisted the complainant like other customers of the bank to take insurance against the loan which secures the loan amount in case of any unexpected, unforeseen events happen to loan borrower/s.

21. Accordingly, OP No.3&4 has issued insurance policy against earth quake-building, fire-building, riot strike malicious damage-building, STFI-building, these all four categories of incidents covers this policy for sum insured was Rs.30,00,000/-, for which complainant has paid Rs.24,780/- as premium for the period of 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2038, which is at Ex.P.3 (this policy hereafter referred as policy No.1). OP No.3&4 has also issued two other policies i.e. group credit secure plan, both have effective from 20.11.2018 to 19.11.2023, for sum insured  Rs.41,93,548/- each. Out of 2 similar group credit secure plan policies, one has issued in favour of husband of the complainant i.e. S. Shiva. In the said insurance policy complainant is nominee as a wife and paid Rs.61,360/- towards premium which is at Ex.P.4 (hereafter this policy will be referred as policy No.2). Another policy has issued in the name of complainant, wherein complainant’s husband is nominee and paid Rs.61,360/- towards premium which is at Ex.P.5 (hereafter this policy will be referred as policy No.3).

22. After perusal of the aforementioned 3 policies, it is clear that OP No.1&2 has introduced OP No.3&4, for obtaining insurance while taking loan from the OP No.1&2. When the innocent complainant and her husband availed loan for buying a property, OP No.1&2 might have introduced OP No.3&4 in good faith, for protection of their loan amount, but OP No.3&4 has sold the product/insurance policy No.1, is totally irrelevant and unwanted when the property situated at Bangalore like area earth quake, fire, riot and STFI coverage is not at all required.

23. Insurance company must have an attitude of good faith and inclination towards best interest of the customers, should not be misleading out of their innocence , at the same time best interest of Financial institutions also. Though the OP 3&4 have issued group credit secure plan, insurance policy by collecting premium of Rs.61,360/- for sum insured Rs.41,93,548/- for different category of coverage which has not at all useful to complainant when she is in financial crisis. Even after receiving such huge amount as a premium and the coverage is also a huge amount with a coverage for accidental death, permanent total disability, home protection benefit, permanent partial disability, accidental dismemberment covers the entire amount of Rs.41,93,548/-, other than these benefits it covers educational benefit, monthly EMI benefit, house alteration and vehicle modification benefit, loss of job benefit, ATM assault and robbery, key replacement coverage, loss of wallet coverage which is at Ex.P.5. Here the question arises when the complainant and her husband are co-applicant to the loan account, the reason for issuing policy No.3 in favour of complainant which is similar coverage as policy no 2,  was not at all required. In spite of knowing all these, OP No.3&4 has issued policy No.3 by collecting premium amount of Rs.61,360/- which is Unfair and Unjust.

24. By perusal of policy No.1 to 3, OP No.3&4 have mislead the complainant’s husband and issued 3 policies after collecting Rs.1,47,500/- towards premium, which are of no use. In our considered view, policy No.1 is irrelevant, not required at all. Policy No.2 was enough to coverage of different categories, except protection of  loan amount of the complainant. By collecting huge premium amount, OP issued policy which neither it covers loan amountnor the life of the insured person. The policy covers irrelevant and silly coverages which are not related to the loan amount. It shows complainant and her husband are innocent without having any knowledge about the policy coverage, OP 1 and 2 insisted them to obtain policy, accordingly OP 3 & 4 issued. Complainant’s husband without knowledge of aforementioned policies, obtained 3 policies as per the representation made by the OP No.1 to 4. When OP No.1&2 has sanctioned huge loan amount and insisted to obtain an insurance policy for loan suraksha, no where it discloses it covers loan amount and life of the insured. And also nowhere it discloses, it protects the loan after the death of the insured person, should not be a burden to the family members of the insured. Such being the case, OP No.1&2 should guide customers like innocent complainant in proper way, should not mislead by showing stars in the sky. OP 1&2 must take responsibility of protecting their loan amount when the unforeseen events happened, banking institutions should be having attitude of best interest of the customer at the same time best interest of the institution.

25. OP NO.1&2 having knowledge that wife of the loan borrower is unemployed, having no source to repay the loan amount if anything happens to primary borrower/ her husband. Looking at the circumstances, OP No.1&2 committed mistake while considering her as secondary borrower when she has no capacity to repay the loan amount. Here the question arises whether OP 1 and 2 obtained any salary slip or income tax returns of complainant while executing loan agreement? Then how she become liable for repayment? It is clearly a deficiency of service on the part of OP 1&2. Definition of co-applicant “co-applicant is the one who applies with the primary borrower for the home loan and accepts to share the EMI (Equated Monthly Installments) and other responsibilities. A Co-signer is the one who needs to pay, only when home loan borrower is at default in making the loan repayment.”

26. After obtaining three policies from OP No.3&4 by paying Rs.1,47,500/- towards premium of the insurance, Complainant claimed the insurance by submitting the claim form before OP No.3&4 after the death of complainant’s husband i.e. on 22.12.2022. All three policies are in existence. The death certificate of complainant’s husband is produced at Ex.P.6. Complainant has filed claim form before OP No.3&4, which is repudiated in letter dated 27.03.2023 on the reason that “the cause of the death is not covered under the policy wherein medical condition of the insured was not under the policy”. At this situation, complainant might have thought that the loan amount will be paid by insurance policies.   If at all we consider those three policies, none of the policy covers the death of husband of the complainant and securing the loan amount availed by the complainant.

27. It is pertinent to note that specially, OP No.3&4 have relied on Ex.P.7 issued by True Life Specialty hospital in which complainant’s husband was under treatment for COPD since January 2021 and was under regular treatment and follow ups. However, patient developed acute Exacerbation of COPD and succumbed on 22.12.2022. In the said document, doctor has mentioned that the probable cause of death is due to sudden cardiac arrest. On that ground, OP No.3&4 repudiated the claim of the complainant, the said death cause does not covers under the policy. Here we can observe that even obtaining 3 policies only with intention to cover the loan amount but none of the policies covered loan amount, clearly shows OP No.1&2 along with OP No.3&4 mislead the complainant’s husband while issuing policies. The main objective of the insurance policy at the time of taking loan is to protect the loan amount and should not be burden to the family members of the insured person at this kind of the situation. In our considered view, both banks and insurance company have caused deficiency of service and together indulging in Unfair Trade Practice  on mutual understanding and they exploiting the innocence of the consumers who comes before them. It is a really Unfair and Unjust. Through this complaint, we realized the insurance company and banking institutions hands in hand in duping the consumers which is not acceptable. Only this complainant has come before this commission raising voice against the OPs, the same situation must have faced by many such consumers. Believing many such consumers are exploited by OPs in this way which is condemnable.

28. Having three policies in three hands of the complainant, but are of no use. Not a single category of risk coverage  protects her loan amount even after the payment of Rs.1,47,500/- towards premium. After perusal of Ex.P.10, the statement of account issued by OP No.1 dated 13.03.2023, complainant’s loan account having principle outstanding of Rs.27,97,564/- and interest due of Rs.53,458/- as on 13.03.2023. As per Ex. R. 2 complainant is due for Rs,27,96,982 as on 17/8/2023. Complainant caused legal notice on 06.04.2023, calling upon OPs No.1 to 4 to disburse a sum of Rs.41,93,548/- under policy No.02359879240002950000 with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of death of complainant’s husband and also claimed OP No.1&2 to set off the same towards the outstanding loan amount and refund the balance amount to complainant. Even after the notice served on OP No.3&4 of the complaint, they have not replied to the notice. Hence in our considered view, OP No.1 to 4 are failed to prove their defence and at the same time, taking contention on silly grounds for the repudiation of the claim of the complainant and exploited her innocence shows they purely indulging in Unfair Trade Practice. For which OPs No.1&2 caused deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice by impleading unemployed complainant who has no income source in the loan agreement and insisted them to obtain policies without having any category of protecting the loan amount of the complainant. OP No.3&4 caused deficiency in service and also Unfair Trade Practice by collecting huge premium amount of Rs.1,47,500/- and issued irrelevant, policy which is  not related to loan protection coverage with misrepresentation and misleading the complainant and her husband executed the loan agreement, repudiating the claim on simple and silly reasons is Unfair and Unjust. On the above reasons we answer Point NO.1&2 in affirmative.

29. Point No.3:-Considering the Ex.P.4&P.5, group credit secure plus insurance policies issued in favour complainant’s husband and complainant in two different policies having additional coverage of monthly EMI benefit is up to 3 EMI or sum insured whichever is lower. Considering the terms and condition of the policy, OP No.3&4 are liable to pay 3 EMI’s which is lower than sum insured i.e. Rs.87,021/- (Rs.29,007X3). Likewise complainant is entitled for Rs.87,021/- for both the policies that comes to Rs.1,74,042/- in total. As discussed above, OP No.1&2 along with OP NO.3&4 equally indulged in Unfair Trade Practice by issuing wrong and un-useful insurance policies while availing loan which are totally irrelevant to secure the loan amount. Without any source of income, complainant has made as a secondary loan borrower without her knowledge and consent made her to liable to repay the loan amount even after paying
Rs.1,47,500/- towards premium of the policy. Hence OP No.1&2 and OP No.3&4 are liable to compensate the same and it is the caution given to OP No.1 to 4 should not repeat the same with the other customers and exploit their innocence. This present complaint in the hand is the only complainant comes before this commission and seeking relief against OPs NO.1 to 4, thinking that OPs have exploited many such consumers who have not come before this commission. Considering this point, in our view it is visible that more than the deficiency of service, Unfair Trade Practice is higher side. Hence, OPs are also liable for the punitive damage U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to curb such Unfair Trade Practice in future.

27. OPs NO.1 to 4 are liable to pay Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation for their malafide intention and exploitation on consumers by providing misrepresentation and issued wrong and irrelevant insurance policies. OPs are further liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation without any reason made complainant to roam around and approached this commission by incurring money to get money. OPs are liable to pay punitive damage for their act of Unfair Trade Practice. In our considered view, imposing Rs.50,000/- to be remitted to Consumer Welfare Fund U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, to stop Unfair Trade Practice in the future. On the above reasons, we answer Point No.3 in partly affirmative.

28. Point No.4:-In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OPs No.3&4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,74,042/- to complainant towards claim amount under group credit secure plus insurance policy with interest @ 10% p.a. from date of claim till realization..
3. OPs No.1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.30,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of the service and Unfair Trade Practice indulged by them, Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4. OPs No.1 to 4 are further liable to pay Rs.50,000/- towards punitive damage, not to repeat such Unfair Trade Practice U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, to be remitted to Consumer Welfare Fund.
5. The above Award shall be paid within 45 days from the date of order failing OP No.1 to 4 shall pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
6. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24^th day of June 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1&2;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.3&4;