MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellants/complainants against the order, dated 18.8.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 827 of 2009 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the deceased husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 & 3 was having two credit cards of OP No.2 in his own name vide HSBC INTL Gold-V Credit Card No.4384 5999 1205 4557 and another HSBC Gold Credit Card No.4384 5999 1554 2731 for which, he was issued two insurance policies, covering various insurance benefits, including that of personal accident death claim, to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of death in an air accident and Rs.4,00,000/- in case of other accidents. He regularly paid the premiums of the policies, from his account.  It was further stated that unfortunately, Sh.Mohinder Pal Singh Sodhi expired in a road side accident on 11.6.2007 upon which, FIR No. 218, dated 11.6.2007 was registered, against the driver of the offending truck at Police Station, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh, and the postmortem was conducted on 12.6.2007 by the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh.   It was further stated that after the death of her husband, complainant No.1 contacted the OPs and requested them to release the amount of death claim of Rs.8 lacs (i.e. Rs.4 lacs each on account of the two insurance policies), but the OPs always postponed the matter, on one pretext or the other. Complainant No.1 also made correspondence with the OPs, through e-mail, but no satisfactory reply was given by them. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1, wherein, it took preliminary objections that the complainants had no locus standi to file the complaint, as no premium was paid to them by the complainants. It was stated that the complaint was grossly misconceived and misdirected. It was further stat6ed that complainants are not a consumer qua OP No.1 as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   It was further stated that OP No.1 was not in the business of issuing Life Insurance Policies, in India, and, in case, any policy produced by the complainants issued by the Company, it would process the claim of the complainants, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  However, no such policy was attached alongwith the complaint. It was denied that any claim was ever lodged or email was received by OP No.1.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         Reply was filed by OP No.2, wherein, it was stated that the deceased was not having two different cards, and two insurance policies. It was further stated that the life insurance coverage was only available, in case of non accidental death but the deceased died due to road accident and, as such, he was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  It was further stated that initially, a personal accident insurance coverage, was also being provided on the said credit cards, and the same was a free coverage, being provided as a special facility to the credit card holder. However, the same was withdrawn w.e.f. 14.1.2007 and, as such, there was no accidental insurance coverage, on the credit card after 14.1.2007. The same was conveyed to the card holder, and this fact also contained in the statement of account.  It was further stated that no premium was paid by the cardholder and, therefore, the claim does not lie in respect of the same.   All other allegations, levelled by the complainants, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.         Reply was filed by OP No.3, wherein, it was denied that it, through HSBC Bank, introduced any life insurance policy, for the credit card holders. It was stated that neither OP No.3 entered into any contract with the HSBC Bank or with the complainants, in any manner, nor any such policy of insurance existed between them. Hence, OP No.3 was not liable to make payment of any amount, claimed by the complainants.  It was further stated that neither OP No.3 was a party, in such a scheme, nor premium of any amount was received by it from the complainant or HSBC Bank, in any manner, till date.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.         The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

8.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/complainants, filed the instant appeal.

9.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record, carefully.

10.       The learned Counsel for the appellants/complainants, contended that Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi was having two credit cards issued by OP No.2, and was provided with an insurance cover of Rs.4 lacs under each card, in case of accidental death. It was further contended that in one of those two credit cards, the name of Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi was wrongly mentioned as Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi. However, OP No.2 denied this contention of the appellant/complainants. It was further contended that no document pertaining to the credit card issued to Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi was produced by OP No.2. It was further contended that the observation of the learned District Forum that the complainants had not produced any such document to suggest if card No.2731 issued to Sh.M.P.S. Sodhi, wrongly mentioned his name as Sh. J.P.S. Sodhi.  It was further contended that when the application form alongwith the relevant documents had already been submitted by Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi with OP No.2, then the complainants could not by any stretch of imagination be in possession of any document pertaining to his credit cards and it was for OP No.2 to plead and prove that Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi was a different person. It was further contended that it was also for OP No.2 to produce any document in support of their contention. It was further contended that it was clear from Annexure C-1 that his card was issued on 15.5.2006 and during the period of more than one year MPS Sodhi never claimed if the said card belonged to him or that the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi had been wrongly mentioned thereon, instead of his name.  It was further contended that the learned District Forum wrongly held that since the deceased had not challenged the withdrawal of the benefit, during his lifetime, which meant that he had consented to the same and that the legal heirs could not challenge he said decision after his death. It was further contended that , on the one hand, the findings of the learned District Forum is that OP No.2 is not legally justified in withdrawing the benefits provided to the credit card holders at the time of issuance of the credit cards to them. It was further submitted that moreover, it was never conveyed by the Ops to the card holder that the benefits provided to him were withdrawn nor the Ops were legally justified in withdrawing such benefits. It was further contended that the appellants are not aware about the correspondence between Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi and OP No.2. It was further contended that actually the card issued in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi was applied for by Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi in his own name, and it was a mere printing mistake on the card on the part of the respondent No.2, but the learned District Forum wrongly held that from the documents i.e. photocopy of the application form, provided by OP No.2, during the course of arguments, it was clear that the card in favour of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi was issued as add on to Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi and that it was a different card in a different name and that the complainants could not claim any insurance cover for Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi on account of this card. 

11.       The learned Counsel for respondent/OP No.1, contended that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.1.  It was further contended that OP No.1 was not in the business of issuing Life Insurance Policies, in India, and if the complainants produced any policy issued by it, then they would process the claim, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  It was denied that any claim was ever lodged or email was received by OP No.1 It was further contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is well reasoned. 

12.       The learned Counsel for respondent/OP No.2 contended that the life insurance coverage was only available, in case of non accidental death but the deceased died due to road accident and, as such, he was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.  It was further contended that the insurance cover available under the card had been withdrawn w.e.f. 14.1.2007 and as such, there was no accidental insurance coverage, on the credit card after 14.1.2007. This fact was specifically intimated to the deceased through bill statement for the period 14.12.2006 to 13.1.2007. It was further stated that the OP No.2 wrongly mentioned the date in its reply as 14.1.2007 whereas the perusal of relevant bill shows that it was intimated to the deceased that the insurance privileges would be withdrawn w.e.f. 1.4.2007. It was further contended that the deceased was not paying any premium for the insurance cover and it was being granted free. It was further contended that as per Clause 3 of Gold Credit Card Service Guide (Annexure R-2/11 in the District Forum), the OP No.2 had its sole discretion that without giving any notice, it was competent to suspend or cancel the benefit of insurance cover  and there could not be any binding on OP No.2 to continue the said benefit. It was further contended that the order passed by the learned District Forum is well reasoned.   

13.       The learned Counsel for OP No.3 contended that neither OP No.3 entered into any contract with the HSBC Bank, nor with the complainant, in any manner, nor any such policy of insurance existed between them. It was further contended that OP No.3 was not a party, in such a scheme, nor premium of any amount was received by it from the complainants or HSBC Bank. Hence, OP No.3 was not liable to make payment of any claim amount, as claimed by the complainant. 

14.            According to the complainants, Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi (deceased) had two credit cards issued by OP No.2 (HSBC Bank) and he was provided with an insurance cover of Rs.4 lacs under each card in case of accidental death but, one of the cards No.4384 5999 1554 2731 (hereinafter referred to as 2731) was wrongly issued by OP No.2, in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi instead of Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi. On the perusal of Annexure C-1, it is evident that this card was issued on 15.5.2006 in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi and, Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi, during his lifetime never agitated that this card belongs to him and the name of the Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi, had been wrongly mentioned, thereon. After the perusal of Annexure R-2/13, we are of the opinion that certainly, the card, in dispute, was issued in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi by OP No.2. The complainant, at any stage, cannot claim any benefit, on account of this card, because this card was issued, in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi, during the lifetime of the deceased, but he never objected that this card had been wrongly issued in the name of Sh.J.P.S.Sodhi, whereas, it was supposed to be issued in his name. Vide annexure R-2/13, OP No.2 duly intimated the deceased  for the withdrawal of the insurance cover, through bill, statement for the period from 14.12.2006 to 13.1.2007. This fact was never challenged by the deceased during his lifetime. Thus, the complainants could not challenge the withdrawal of insurance cover w.e.f. 1.4.2007 after the death of the deceased. 

15.         Moreover, the complainants are not entitled to the privilege of insurance available to the deceased i.e. a life insurance cover for an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the event of death, due to non-accidental causes, as the death of Sh.M.P.S.Sodhi had occurred due to an accident, regarding which, an FIR (Annexure C-8) was lodged. Even the complainants cannot claim any benefit under the Gold Credit Card Scheme, which was to be provided, in the case of non-accidental death. There was, thus, no deficiency of service, on the part of the OPs.  

16.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellants, is dismissed, being devoid of merit, and the order passed by the learned District Forum, is upheld. 

17.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

18.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. 

Pronounced.                                                                        

2^nd September, 2011.