Haryana

Kaithal

401/19

Sudesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.V Ravish

16 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.401/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 02.12.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:16.05.2023.

Sudesh W/o Sh. Dalel Singh r/o Village Theh Newal, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Oriental Bank of Commerce Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal.
2. Chief Operating Officer Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce, Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO-93, Ist Floor, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal-132001.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Umesh Bura, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sudesh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the husband of complainant namely Sh. Dalel Singh was having account in bank of OP No.1 bearing account No.00522191033662.  Said Dalel Singh used to avail the Krishi Card Limit from time to time through OP No.1 and on the advice of officials of OP No.1, the husband of complainant also got insurance policy of OP No.2 with the assurance that in case of death of borrower or holder of Krishi Credit Card, the amount, if found stand due against the Krishi Credit Card holder, same will be automatically waived of.  Said Dalel Singh died on 07.01.2019 at Phull Neuro and Multispeciality Hospital, Patiala and information to Ops for the waiving of loan of Krishi Card Limit but inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, no need was paid on her request by the OPs.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version separately.  Op No.1 filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission; the true facts are that husband of complainant namely Sh. Dalel Singh had taken life insurance policy in question from the Op No.2. Sh. Dalel Singh paid four annual premiums of Rs.10,000/- each to Canara HSBC Insurance Company Ltd. and after the death of Sh. Dalel Singh, present complainant Smt. Sudesh received the sum assured to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.09.2019 through her account i.e. IDBI Bank, Pedal, which she intentionally not disclosed in the complaint and tried to evade the liability towards the answering OP-bank wherein an amount of Rs.3,15,583.27/- plus interest is outstanding in the Crop loan account bearing No.00525115002743.  It is further stated that the policy taken by Sh. Dalel Singh was life insurance policy and not for waivement of loan.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             OP No.2 filed the written version on the same line as followed by OP No.1 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             On the other hand, the respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3, respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the husband of complainant namely Sh. Dalel Singh was having account in bank of OP No.1 bearing account No.00522191033662.  Said Dalel Singh used to avail the Krishi Card Limit from time to time through OP No.1 and on the advice of officials of OP No.1, the husband of complainant also got insurance policy of OP No.2 with the assurance that in case of death of borrower or holder of Krishi Credit Card, the amount, if found stand due against the Krishi Credit Card holder, same will be automatically waived of.  It is further argued that said Dalel Singh died on 07.01.2019 at Phull Neuro and Multispeciality Hospital, Patiala and information to Ops for the waiving of loan of Krishi Card Limit but inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant, no need was paid on her request by the OPs.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

9.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that husband of complainant namely Sh. Dalel Singh had taken life insurance policy in question from the Op No.2. Sh. Dalel Singh paid four annual premiums of Rs.10,000/- each to Canara HSBC Insurance Company Ltd. and after the death of Sh. Dalel Singh, present complainant Smt. Sudesh received the sum assured to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.09.2019 through her account i.e. IDBI Bank, Pedal, which she intentionally not disclosed in the complaint and tried to evade the liability towards the answering OP-bank wherein an amount of Rs.3,15,583.27/- plus interest is outstanding in the Crop loan account bearing No.00525115002743.  It is further argued that the policy taken by Sh. Dalel Singh was life insurance policy and not for waivement of loan.

10.            Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has argued that upon receipt of the death claim intimation, the Company evaluated the veracity of the claim and decided to pay the claim under the subject policy to the nominee thereunder.  Accordingly, the applicable death benefit under the policy amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the sum assured under the policy has already been paid by the OP Company to the complainant in her IDBI bank account No.1878104000024301 and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt. 01.10.2019.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. 

11.            We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the policy Annexure-C4/Annexure-R1 that the OP No.2 issued a certificate of insurance bearing No.SS000004-0273500 to the life assured namely Dalel with risk of commencement date as 04.02.2013, annual premium was Rs.10,000/- for a period of 5 years, policy term was 10 years and the sum assured was Rs.1,00,000/-.  So, the said policy was life insurance policy and not for waiving of loan.  It is also clear from the pleadings of OP No.2 that upon receipt of death claim intimation, the applicable death benefit under the policy amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. the sum assured under the policy has already been paid by the OP Company to the complainant in her IDBI bank account No.1878104000024301 and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt. 01.10.2019 as per Annexure-R3.  The details of payout of death benefit under the policy is mentioned below:-

        ‘Payee Name                      :       Sudesh Devi

        Bank Account No.                        :       1878104000024301

        Mode of payment                        :       HSBCN19273765764

        Date of transaction/payout    :       30^th September, 2019.”

        So, it is clear that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.

12.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.