Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/497

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT MANGAL S PATIL & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

KMC LEGAL

22 Mar 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/497
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/01/2010 in Case No. 216/2009 of District Kolhapur)
 
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
ZENITH HOUSE KESHAVRAO KHADHEMARG MAHALAXMI MUMBAI
Maharastra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SMT MANGAL S PATIL & ORS
202NABARSANKOOL FIFTH LANE RAJARAM PURI KOLHAPUR
Maharastra
2. ICICI HOME FINANCE LIMITED
VASANT PLAZA, RAJARAM ROAD, NEAR BAGAL CHOWK, KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr.Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
 Mr.Hitesh Ranginga, Advocate for respondent No.1.
 Mr.V. Mannadiar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/01/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.216/2009 (Mangal S. Patil V/s. ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. & Anr.) by District Forum, Kolhapur.

 

2.       Undisputed facts are that Late Sidhgonda J. Patil, husband of complainant-Mangal Patil had taken a house loan from respondent/opponent No.1-ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Finance Company’).  Said loan was covered by Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy for the borrowers issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) and whereby Late Sidhgonda J. Patil since was one of the borrowers in respect of house loan taken, is a beneficiary.  As per said policy, in case of death of borrower (in a case before us, Late Sidhgonda J. Patil), the Insurance Company would indemnify and pay for principal outstanding in the loan account as on the date of loss i.e. date of death of a borrower.  Said outstanding amount came to `5,97,077/- when Late Sidhgonda J. Patil died in two wheeler accident on 14/05/2005.  Since the Insurance Company did not indemnify the beneficiary Late Sidhgonda J. Patil by depositing the amount as per the policy and since, financial company started demanding the same without adjusting the same, consumer complaint was filed. 

 

3.       The District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount payable under the insurance policy of `5,97,077/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 03/10/2007 and credit the same in the house loan account of Late Sidhgonda J. Patil maintained with the financial company.  It further directed the Finance Company to bear the outstanding balance after adjusting the above referred amount and also directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant and return the documents of loan to her.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.  As stated at the Bar the Finance Company did not prefer any appeal and acquiesced with the impugned order.

 

4.       Heard Mr.Mehta, an Advocate for the appellant, Mr.Hitesh Ranginga, an Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.V. Mannadiar, an Advocate for respondent No.2. 

 

5.       The appellant at the first instance submitted that Late Sidhgonda J. Patil did not die as a result of accident, but cause of death is mentioned as ‘acute myocardial infarct injury’.  We are afraid; the submission cannot be accepted since it is devoid of any substance, infra.  Admittedly, on meeting with an accident on 23/04/2005 Late Sidhgonda J. Patil was admitted in Aadhar Nursing Home during a period 23/04/2005 to 03/05/2005 and thereafter, continued the treatment remaining at his home.  In a death certificate issued referring to the cause of death of Late Sidhgonda J. Patil, the treating doctor Dr.Ajay Kini observed and mentioned, “Acute Myocardial Infarct injuries due to the vehicle accident.  Because of these acute injuries only, he dies on 14th May 2005.”  This shows that the cause of death has nexus with the accident met by Late Sidhgonda J. Patil and his death is ultimately occurred due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

 

6.       The Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy of which home loan customers of ICICI Bank Ltd. including Late Sidhgonda J. Patil is one of the beneficiaries.  Special Condition from the policy as per clause 10 reads as under :-

 “(i)   The policy is issued on Named basis

(ii)     The policy will pay for the principal outstanding in the loan account as on the date of loss.

(iii)    The claim should be intimated within the three months of occurrence of the event, failing to which company shall not be liable to pay the claim.

(iv)    Benefit under this policy would start after the final loan disbursal.  This cover is not applicable in cases where only partial loan disbursal has happened.

v)       In case the payment from any other policy extinguishes the principal loan outstanding amount or reduces the same, this policy will pay for only the balance principal outstanding as on date of loss.  This policy would be the last resort extinguishes the principal loan outstanding.

vi)      This policy covers only primary loan applicant as mentioned in ICICI Bank’ books.”

Referring to condition No.(iii), supra, it is tried to be argued on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company that since the claim was not made within three months from the date of occurrence of event, they are not liable to pay the claim.  Referring to the repudiation letter dated 03/10/2007 addressed to son of Late Sidhgonda J. Patil, no such grievance was made about late submission of claim but the repudiation is claimed only on the basis that Late Sidhgonda J. Patil met with a natural death, which is not covered under the policy.  Therefore, this submission referred above by the appellant cannot be accepted.  Furthermore, we find that the Insurance Company and the Finance Company since are sister-concern of ICICI Bank, though working in different areas, one is Finance Company and another is Insurance Company.  Their functions are interconnected with each other to safeguard the loan given to the borrowers by the Bank, the risk is covered under this group insurance policy.  However, on the death of borrower who is also named beneficiary, the Insurance Company failed to discharge its obligation by crediting principal amount due in the loan account of Late Sidhgonda J. Patil.  Therefore, not the date of repudiation but considering the fact that they failed to indemnify the beneficiary of the insurance policy by depositing/crediting the principal component of the house loan account, the cause of action could be said as continuous one.  Therefore, direction given by the District Forum as per the impugned order is just to remove the deficiency in service by the Insurance Company within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, cannot be faulted with.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.       Appeal stands dismissed.

2.       No order as to costs.

3.       Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced

Dated 22nd March 2013.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar]
MEMBER

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.