Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

494/2006

L.Kaladevi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company , Regional Officer - Opp.Party(s)

T.Mohan Babu

04 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   18.05.2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.494/2006

   MONDAY THIS 4^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

l. Kaladevi,

W/o.Late Loganathan,

13,Thai Mahalakshmi Nagar,

Mogalivakkam,  Porur,

Chennai.                                                                             Complainant

                                                    Vs  

 

1.  Customs Support Officer,

Hong Kong Shagai Banking Corpn. Ltd.,

Card Product Division,

Post Bag No.29128,

Worli, Mumbai 400 305.

 

2. Custom Support Officer,

Hong Kong Shagai Baking Corpn Ltd.,

Having their Branch office at

30 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

 

3. National Insurance Co. Division No.10,

Resham Bhavan,

VI Floor, No.78, Vir Nariman Road,

Mumbai 400 020.

 

4. National Insurance Co.

Having their Regional Office at

190, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006.                  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant               :   M/s. Jayashree Narasimhan          

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :   M/s. R. Balaji & another

Counsel for opposite parties-3 & 4 :  M/s.Vadivel  

 

ORDER

THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, MEMBER-II

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.52,910.93 with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as deficiency in service and to pay cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  the complainant’s husband had a credit card  holder with the 1^st opposite party  vide credit card No.5548370008350865 died in a road accident on 18.1.2003.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 were having a Group Personal Accident Policy for their card holder with opposite parties 3 & 4 upon the receipt of the death intimation it was duly informed to opposite parties 3 & 4 and they have settled Rs.1,50,000/- and the proceeds were sent to the 1^st opposite party which is credit card issuance banker.    Where they have disbursed Rs.97,089.07 by retaining Rs.52,910.93 for the card due payments on 29.11.2003.   The complainant sought that credit shield claim which was held by opposite party-2 has to be settled.  On 24.2.2004 the complainant informed opposite party-1 that they sought Rs.52,910.93 which is the balance amount to be payable by the opposite party-2.  Subsequently on 22.5.2005 the complainant sought the balance claim amount which was withheld by them to be released forthwith.  Since there is no  response from the opposite parties 1 & 2.     As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  opposite parties 1 & 2  is  as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 submit that there is no dispute about the settlement of personal Accident claim of the deceased Husband of the complainant and the deceased person a credit card holder of their bank was having a due in his credit card to the tune Rs.53,910.93.  As per the condition stipulated in the card usage service guide which is felt as “ In case of accidental death the legal heir the assignee / nominee shall not be entitled to be paid any amount under the Group Insurance company by the Insurances company unless and until all the dues to the bank are settled.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  opposite parties 3 & 4  is  as follows:

The  opposite parties 3 & 4 deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties submit that as insurer they have discharged their duty in settling the claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite parties 1 & 2 who are the insured and the beneficiary the legal heir of deceased person should collect their claim amount from their bankers.   As insurer as per the terms of the contract between insured and insurer we had fulfilled our liability.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.52,910.93 with interest of 18% from the opposite parties as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service with cost as prayed for ?

6. POINTS 1 & 2:

        Heard  both sides.  Perused  the records.    The complainant’s husband had a credit card   holder with the 1^st opposite party  vide credit card No.5548370008350865 died in a road accident on 18.1.2003.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 were having a Group Personal Accident Policy for their card holder with opposite parties 3 & 4 upon the receipt of the death intimation it was duly informed to opposite parties 3 & 4 and they have settled Rs.1,50,000/- and the proceeds were sent to the 1^st opposite party which is credit card issuance banker.    Where they have disbursed Rs.97,089 .07 by retaining Rs.52,910.93 for the card due payments on 29.11.2003.   The complainant sought that credit shield claim which was held by opposite party-2 has to be settled.  On 24.2.2004 the complainant informed opposite party-1 that they sought Rs.52,910.93 which is the balance amount to be payable by the opposite party-2.  Subsequently on 22.5.2005 the complainant sought the balance claim amount which was withheld by them to be released forthwith.  Since  there is no response from the opposite parties 1& 2.    The complainant is constrained to issue a legal notice on 8.8.2005 but no reply has been given.   Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

7.     The opposite parties 1 & 2 in their written version stated that there is no dispute about the settlement of personal Accident claim of the deceased Husband of the complainant and the deceased person a credit card holder of their bank was having a due in his credit card to the tune Rs.53,910.93.  As per the condition stipulated in the card usage service guide which is felt as “ In case of accidental death the legal heir the assignee / nominee shall not be entitled to be paid any amount under the Group Insurance company by the Insurances company unless and until all the dues to the bank are settled.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 have lien on the insurance amount and shall be entitled to seek adjournment of the insurance amount due by the card holder at the time of insurance claim is made   (Ex.A1).   The opposite parties 1 & 2 relied on the Ex.B2 that they are clearly intimated to the complainant in their letter that the due amount in the card by the card holder is being adjusted by the claim amount sent by the insurer and the balance is paid.

8.     The opposite parties 3 & 4 in their written arguments   and the learned counsel for the 3 & 4 argued that as insurer they have discharged their duty in settling the claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite parties 1 & 2 who are the insured and the beneficiary the legal heir of deceased person should collect their claim amount from their bankers.   As insurer as per the terms of the contract between insured and insurer we had fulfilled our liability.   Considering the facts and documents filed by both parties of the disputes and the oral arguments the complainant has not come for advancing his argument only the opposite party is argued and put forth their pleading in this forum.  We are of the considered view that when there is a overdue by the cardholder it is the duty of the cardholder, to settle the amount to the bankers.   Since the banker have lien over the amount received from the insurers the complainant cannot claim for the amount debited by the banker from the claim settlement received from the insurers.     Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly. 

 

            In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4^th day  of December 2017.  

 

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 29.11.2003         - Copy of letter from the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A2- 11.2.2004  - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A3- 24.2.2004  - Copy of letter from the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A4- 22.2.2005  - Copy of letter by complainant.

Ex.A5- 8.8.2005    - Copy of notice by complainant.

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

 

 

Ex.B1- 24.2.2004  - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opp. party.

Ex.B2- 29.11.2003         - Copy of letter from the complainant to the opp. party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.