Haryana

Karnal

CC/372/2022

Randeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Comapny Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms Nisha Chaudhary

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 372 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.05.07.2022

                                                      Date of Decision 06.07.2022

 

Randeep Singh aged about 52 years son of Gurnam Singh, resident of village Dua Majra, Tehsil Shahbad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Star Union Dai-ichi Life insurance (SUD Life) Co. SCO 388-389, 1^st floor Mughal Canal Karnal through its Manager.

 

2.     Union Bank of India Branch Sarafa Bazar, Ambala City, District Ambala through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Sh. Surinder Kumar Madaan Adv. for the complainant.

 

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs) on the averments that son of complainant namely Davinder Singh who was educated and having qualification B.M.S., P.hd., D.M.L.T.  He has a lab in the premises of Dr. Subhash Dhamija Ambala.  From the earning from his lab he had to give 60% of his earning to Dr. Dhamija because of his premises. It is alleged that about 7-8 years back one official of the Union Bank i.e. OP no.2 allured the son of complainant that he can take loan for purchasing plot from OP no.2 and after the construction he can run his own laboratory. In this way, he can save his 60% which has to given to Dr. Dhamija. Thereafter, the official of OP no.2, vide reference no.5521940000481 dated 27.07.2016 sanctioned the loan of Rs.49,90,000/- for the purpose of purchasing the land and construction of building. The said loan will commence from August, 2017. In this way moratorium period of 12 months was also allowed. At the time of disbursement of the loan OP no.2 assured that the abovesaid loan is being secured through a “Loan Secure Insurance Policy” issued by the OP no.1. The OP no.2 further assured that in case of any eventuality i.e. loss of income, loss of job, loss due to natural calamity and death of borrower, then the remaining EMI of the bank i.e. OP no.2 will be adjusted by the OP no.1. It is further alleged that at the time of disbursement of the loan, OP no.2 purchased the insurance policy. The loan insurance policy was not handed over to the son of the complainant and was kept by the OP no.2 on the pretext that till the borrower clears all the EMI of the bank loan, it will be retained by the OP no.2. It is further alleged that after disbursement of the loan, the official of the OP no.2 started deducted the EMI from the bank account of the son of complainant. Thereafter, son of complainant approached the official of the OP no.2 and requested them not to deduct EMI before the expiry of moratorium period of 12 months which was allowed at the time of sanction of the loan. They further threatened the son of complainant that his loan account will be declared NPA. Due to harassment caused by the official of the OP no.2, the son of complainant committed suicide. The wife of the complainant also passed away due to shock of the untimely death of their beloved younger son. After the death of his son complainant the official of the OP no.2 approached the complainant and are threatening the complainant to pay the lump-sum loan amount borrowed by the son of the complainant.  When complainant asked the OP no.2 that at the time of disbursement of the loan it was assured that the abovesaid loan is secured through “Loan Cover insurance Policy” and the balance EMI way be adjusted through it but the official of the OPs are not acceding the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Arguments on the admissibility heard.’

3.             It is pertinent to mention here that complaint no.116  dated 27.02.2019 had been filed by the complainant Randeep Singh. On 13.06.2022, the said complaint was fixed for furnishing case laws by the complainant, if any, and for final order. Before pronouncing the order, learned counsel for the complainant withdrew the same with permission to file the fresh complaint. The abovesaid complaint as well as the present complaint was/is defended by Shri S.K. Madaan Advocate. During the course of arguments, Commission has pointed out as to why the facts with regard to withdrawal of previous complaint have not been mentioned in the present complaint. Upon this, learned counsel for the complainant submits that this objection should be raised by the opposite parties not by the Commission.

4.             The complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint with regard to withdrawal of the previous complaint. In the present complaint, the complainant has taken a plea that OPs have cheated the complainant and his son and committed fraud against them. Furthermore, in the previous complaint, as per the version of the OPs, the son of complainant had committed suicide and date of death is within 12 months from the risk commencement date of the policy and as per the clause 6 of the policy, hence the complainant is not entitled for the benefits.

5.             In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 06.07.2022

 

                                                                President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

           (Vineet Kaushik)            (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                   Member                          Member