DATE OF FILING : 26-03-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 23-04-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 13-12-2013.
- Smt. Manju Singh,
W/O Lt. Dhirendra Singh,
31/2, College Road,
B. Garden, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah..--------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.
- Versus -
1. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Salkia, Branch, Salkia
Howrah- 711 106.
2. Senior Manager, Claims
SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.
C.P.C. Kapas Bhavan, Plot 3A,
Sector No. 10, CBD Belapur,
Navi, Mumbai- 400 614.
3. State Bank of India,
RACPC-CUM-SARC, Howrah
9, G.T. Road (S)
Howrah – 711 101.---------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant Smt. Manju Singh by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act. 1986 (as amended upto date) has prayed a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to pay the death claim of her husband, Dhirendra Singh, since deceased or to exempt the house building loan of Rs.6,74,000/- availed by Dhirendra Singh since deceased, to return back the sale deed being no 5137 registered with A.D. S.R., Howrah, to cancel the demand notice dt. 04.04.2013, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment along with litigation cost and other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
Brief fact of the case is that Complainant’s husband, Dhirendra Singh since deceased applied for a home loan to O.P. 1 on 02.11.2010 and O.P. 1 sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.6,74,000/- vide sanction letter dt. 14.01.2011 out of such Rs.6,74,000/-, O.P. 1 deducted Rs.34,000/- towards the insurance premium as SBI Life covering HBL vide disbursement schedule (a part of letter of arrangement). For availing such loan, Dhiredra Singh, since deceased, also paid the required processing fee and other incidental charges. Finally on 11.08.2011 The loan was sanctioned. And complainant paid Rs.5575/- on 03.08.2011 being the difference amount of SBI Life premium. Initially, a cheque of Rs.6,40,000/- was issued by O.P. 1 in favour of the seller / vender of the flat in question and Rs.34000/- was kept by O.P. 1 as premium of SBI Life premium covering the life of the lonee, Dhirendra Singh, since deceased. As security, O.P. 1 took the sale deed being no.05137 for the year 2011 registered with A.D.S.R. Howrah. The EMI for the said loan was Rs.6700/- per month which was started on and from10.09.2011. But unfortunately on 10.09.2011, Dhirndra Singh died due to acute cardiac arrest. And his wife and children became the legal heirs. This sudden untimely death made his wife Manju Singh, complainant herein, completely helpless. And after coming out of this mental trauma, she wrote a letter to O.P. 1 on 14.06.2012 to inform O.P. 1 about this death with a request to exempt her from the burden of this loan. As per O.P. 1 instruction and advice, complainant submitted claim form along with all documents. But al on a sudden O.P. 2 repudiated the claim, vide annexure letter dt. 02.01.2013, on the ground that complainant’s husband died within 30days of the initiation of the insurance policy. And as per their exclusion clause, claim would have been allowed if complainant’s husband would have died after 45 days of the initiation of the policy. It is also alleged that O.P. 1 never supplied any policy document and only at the time of submitting the claim form, complainant came to know the policy no. which is 70000000310. And also she came to know, the policy condition that no claim is payable within 30 days if death occurs due to some natural reason. The claim is only payable in the event of accidental death of life assured if accrued within a period of 45 days but all these condition were never under the knowledge of the life assured as well as his wife, herein the complainant. After receiving the repudiation letter, complainant became perplexed. According to her version all deaths are noting but accidents. Moreover here in this case, complainant’s husband died even at the age of 44 years, which is noting but an accident by which complainant and her children are the only sufferers. In this situation, O.P.s this kind of attitude and stand can only be treated as deficiency in service. Not only that O.P. also adopted unfair means as once they are not allowing the death claim and on the other hand they are sending the demand notice dt.04.04.2013 asking for the repayment of loan amount with all threatening words. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayers.
Notice were served upon the O.Ps. O.P.1 never appeared or filed W/V. But O.Ps. 2 & 3 appeared and filed W/V. Accordingly the case was heard exparte against O.P. 1
Decision with reason.
On scrutiny of the record, we find that O.P. 3 sent demand notice on 04.04.2013 asking for the total repayment of loan amount being Rs.6,74,000/- with threatening words like publishing of photographs etc. And immediately after receiving the copy of this instant petition, as O.P. 3 was impleaded after the amendment was allowed, O.P. 3 sent another letter dt.26.04.2013 stating therein that photo threat notice dt. 04.04.2013 was sent in-advertently and the inconvenience caused due to this incidence, is sincerely regretted. From this it clearly shows that without thinking twice, O.P. 3 sent such a notice dt. 04.04.2013 to the complainant. How far it can affect complainant and her minor children’s emotion was never given any consideration. It is the contention of O.P. 2 that complainant’s husband only on 04.08.2011 submitted proposal form for availing himself of the insurance coverage by way of depositing Rs.7915/- vide cheque bearing no.698038 dt. 04.08.2011 and the amount was received by them on 11.08.2011. So, insurance coverage was granted on and from 11.08.2011 for a sum assured of Rs.6,79,575/- . And as the complainant husband died on 10.09.2011 which is within 30 days of policy commencement, claim is not payable as per policy condition no. 11.3. But as per their policy condition, the death is required to occur due to an accident which should not be a natural one. O.Ps.’ this argument makes us surprised. The death of a person, at the age of 44 years, when he was having two minor School going children, has been considered by O.Ps. as a natural death ! we all know now a days, average life time of human being is 65- 70 years. We have also carefully gone through para 31,32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39 of the W/v filed by O.P. 2 and noted their contents. It is a specific plea of O.P. 2 that as proposal form was submitted by the complainant’s husband, the terms and condition was also under his know ledge and he suppressed all material facts such as he was having diabetes. And suppression of fact by complainant husband does not help complainant to get the claim amount. But no proposal form filled by the complainant’s husband has been annexed by O.P. 2. O.P. 2 has annexed policy document and claim form with their BNA O.Ps. 2 & 3 have accepted premium only on 11.08.2013 for an amount of Rs.7915 but denied the acceptance of Rs.34000/- as premium. It is not accepted by us as it is very clear from O.Ps. own annexure named ‘Disbursement’ schedule’ from that it is clear that O.Ps. retained Rs.34,000/- as insurance premium and although they sanctioned Rs.6,74,000/- as loan, a cheque of Rs.6,40,000/- only was issued in favour of the vender / seller of the flat in question. From the policy document, Page 3 it is evident that date of commencement of master policy being no.70000000310 is 07.06.2011. And suddenly on 10.09.11, complainant’s husband died out of cardiac arrest which is nothing but an accident. O.Ps. are interpreting the provision / clauses of the policy as per their advantage. It is nothing but their arbitrariness. They have retained Rs.34000/- as premium although they sanctioned Rs.6,74,000/- vide sanction letter dt. 14.01.2011. And it is also admitted by O.Ps. 2 & 3 that another amount of Rs.7,915/- was received by O.Ps. on 11.08.2011 as further premium towards the same policy. Even after that O.Ps. refused to pay the claim amount which is noting but gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps. They have indulged in to all emotional harassment which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Consumer Protection Act, 19866, being a beneficial legislation, will always protect the interest of a consumer.
Housing is a basis need for any human being and O.Ps. have harassed the complainant and her minor children immensely when they are passing through very tough financial condition after the sudden demise of Dhirmdra Sinha . Accordingly, we find O.Ps. to be deficient in providing service towards the complainant.
Hence,
