Haryana

StateCommission

A/177/2016

AXIS BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

UMA YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GUPTA

23 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 177 & 228 of 2016

Date of Institution: 29.02.2016 & 16.03.2016

Date of Decision:  23.05.2017

Appeal No.177 of 2016

Axis Bank Limited, Circular Road, Rewari through its authorised signatory, Head Branch Office, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Uma Yadav wife of late Sh. Hemant Yadav, Resident of House No.III-AR, Model Town Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      The New India Assurance Company Limited Claim Hub Mumbai, Regional Office-I, 12^th Floor, New India Centre 17/1 Coprej Road, Mumbai through Deputy Manager Claim Hub MRO-II.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

Appeal No.228 of 2016

The New India Assurance Company Limited Claim Hub Mumbai, Regional Office-I, 12^th Floor, New India Centre 17/1 Coprej Road, Mumbai through Deputy Manager Claim Hub MRO-II now through its authorised signatory of Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. 

                             Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

1.      Uma Yadav wife of late Sh. Hemant Yadav, Resident of House No.III-AR, Model Town Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Axis Bank Limited, Circular Road, Rewari through its authorised signatory, Head Branch Office, Tehsil and District Rewari.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Axis Bank Limited.

Shri Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Uma Yadav.

Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate for New India Assurance Company Limited. 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

        This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals bearing No. 177 and 228 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated January 4^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’), in complaint No.473 of 2012 filed by Uma Devi-complainant.

2.                Shri Hemant Yadav, Advocate – husband of Uma Devi-complainant, was having saving bank account bearing No.909010032343442 with the Axis Bank Limited, Rewari – Opposite Party No.1. Hemant Yadav was provided facility of international debit card bearing No.4688059000562741, which was valid from 9^th September, 2009 to 9^th September, 2019.  During the above mentioned period, the debit card holder was insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) for an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs in case of death due to accident under special contingency policy.  The annual premium amount was deducted by the opposite party No.1 from the saving bank account of the complainant and the same was paid to the opposite party No.2. Unfortunately, Hemant Yadav met with an accident on 10^th May, 2011 and breathed his last on the same date. First Information Report (FIR) No.103 (Exhibit P-4) under Sections 279,304-A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Rampura, District Rewari. Post Mortem Examination of the deceased-insured was conducted at General Hospital, Rewari, vide Post Mortem Report Exhibit P-5.

3.                Uma Devi-complainant being nominee of the deceased-Hemant Yadav, is entitled to the insured amount. Complainant filed claim form dated 30^th June, 2012 with the opposite party No.1 but the same was repudiated by the opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 20^th September, 2012 (Exhibit P-9) on the ground that the debit card was not used by the card holder during a period of 180 days prior to the date of death of the policy holder. It is nowhere mentioned in the policy that for covering the debit card holder under the policy it was necessary to have at least a single purchase through debit card within a period of 180 days. It is prayed that the repudiation letter dated 20^th September, 2012 (Exhibit P-9) regarding rejection of the claim be set aside and the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs alongwith an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The complainant also be awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and humiliation.

4.                The Opposite Party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited, in its written version has taken plea that the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by her own acts and conduct; that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint and that the complaint is time barred. It is pleaded that when debit card was provided to the insured-Hemant Yadav, all the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were told to him. A booklet of instructions as well as terms and conditions of debit card was also sent to the card holder. As per terms and conditions, the debit card holder is required to use his debit card for payment at least once during a period of 180 days prior to the date of death. As there was not even a single transaction by using the debit card during the preceding 180 days prior to the date of death, the claim of the complainant was validly repudiated by the insurance company. It is pleaded that the opposite party No.1 –Axis Bank Limited pays the premium from the account of the card holder maintained with the bank, to provide insurance cover to the customers who hold debit card, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite party No.1 and the Insurance Company are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. In the event of violation of terms and conditions, the opposite party No.1 –Axis Bank Limited, cannot be held liable. The role of the opposite party No.1 is merely as an agent as facilitator and the actual insurance policy was issued by the opposite party No.2. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The New India Assurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2, filed its separate written version taking plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated as the card holder did not use his debit card even a single time during the preceding 180 days prior to the date of his death. No single transaction is shown by using the debit card as per statement of accounts from 31^st July, 2011 up to 30^th July, 2012. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

6.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, the District Forum vide impugned order dated 04^th January, 2016 allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization; an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

8.                Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4^th January, 2016 passed by the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 has filed appeal No.177 of 2016 and opposite party No.2 has filed appeal No.288 of 2016 for setting aside the impugned order.

9.                I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files.

10.              It is admitted fact that deceased Hement Yadav was having a saving bank account No.909010032343442 with the Axis Bank Limited, Rewari – Opposite Party No.1. It is evident from the statement of account regarding the period from 31^st July, 2011 up to 30^th July, 2012 (Annexure A-7) also. It is also admitted fact that an international debit card bearing No.4688059000562741 (Exhibit P-2)  was provided by the opposite party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited to the card holder-since deceased. Under the Scheme, the insured was provided insurance cover by the opposite party No.2 regarding the period from 9^th September, 2009 to 9^th September, 2019. The card holder was insured for an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs in the event of death by an accident. It is evident from the statement of account (Annexure A-7) that the annual charges for providing insurance policy were deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant on 20^th September, 2011.  Accordingly, this version of the opposite party No.1 stands falsified that the annual charges for providing insurance cover were paid by the Axis Bank Limited itself.

11.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that at the time of providing insurance cover, no document concerning with the insurance policy was executed in between the insured and the opposite parties. In fact, the insurance was provided on the basis of a scheme launched by the Axis Bank Limited-opposite party No.1 in collaboration with the opposite party No.2 – The New India Assurance Company Limited to attract more and more customers in the bank. In fact, this facility was provided with the efforts of the opposite party No.1 to attract more and more customers. The copy of the policy schedule for credit package insurance policy (Exhibit RW1/B) has been placed on the file. The claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 20^th September, 2012 (Exhibit P-9) mentioning that no transaction took place during the period of 180 days by using the debit card preceding the date of death of the insured. In document (Exhibit OP1/2) Visa International Debit Card as well as other documents placed on the file, like policy schedule, for credit card package insurance policy Exhibit RW1/B as well as Special Contingency Policy for covering debit card holders (Exhibit RW1/C), were not supplied to the insured. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that no booklet (as mentioned in the written version) or any other document concerning the insurance policy, was supplied to the insured. The insured was also not told at the time of providing the insurance policy that the claim under this insurance policy shall be repudiated in case no transaction took place during the relevant period of 180 days prior to the date of death of the insured. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that as and when the complainant received the international debit card from the opposite party No.1, he was told that the bank was going to provide insurance cover to the debit card holders, covering risk up to an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs in case of death due to an accident.

12.              After going through the entire record on the file, it is clear that the opposite parties could not prove that any document concerning with the insurance policy was reduced into writing and was signed by the insured. In the written version at one place it is mentioned that booklet concerning with this insurance containing terms and conditions of the insurance policy, was sent to the insured. No documentary evidence is produced to prove that the booklet or any other document with the insurance policy was sent to the insured.  In the written version also the date, month and year is not mentioned when any such booklet containing instructions was sent to the complainant. Whether the above mentioned document was sent by ordinary post or through registered post, is also not mentioned.

13.              From the record on the file, it appears that as usual practice when the complainant was provided international debit card, he was provided insurance cover at the instance of the opposite party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited, under Special Contingency policy for covering debit card holders, as mentioned in Exhibit P-3. Simply, the annual charges amount was deducted from the saving bank account of the insured. On the basis of the evidence in this case findings can be certainly given that the insured was never specifically told orally or by supplying documents that the insurance claim can be accepted only in case at least one transaction takes place by use of the debit card within a period of 180 days.

14.              As per discussion above in detail, findings can be safely given that the insured was not told specifically at the time of providing insurance policy that insurance claim can be accepted only in case the debit card is used at least once during a period of 180 days preceding the date of death of insured. Regarding providing insurance policy and regarding claim amount in connection with death of the insured Rs.2.00 lacs, there is no controversy of any type. It is mentioned in the documents concerned with the insurance policy placed on the file. It appears that after death of her husband, the complainant came to know that on the basis of the insurance cover provided with the international debit card, she is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs from the opposite parties. Resultantly, findings are given that the complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs under the above mentioned insurance policy and claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated by the insurance company. 

15.              Learned District Forum has given findings in the complaint in favour of the complainant mentioning that the condition regarding use of the international debit card at least once within a period of 180 days preceding the date of death appears to be harass and ambiguous. In our view, even if findings are given that view of the learned District Forum in this regard is not correct, even then prayer of the complainant regarding her claim cannot be declined because it was not specifically brought to the notice of the insured that use of international card is must at least once during a period of 180 days.

16.              During the course of arguments, learned  counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that in case the complainant succeeds, the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company is liable to pay the awarded amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-Insurance Company has argued that in case version of the complainant is accepted, the liability to make payment of the awarded amount should be of the opposite party No.1 as it was the duty of the opposite party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited to bring all relevant facts regarding the insurance policy to the knowledge of the insured. 

17.              In this case, in fact the insurance policy has been provided by the opposite party No.2 – Insurance Company through the opposite party No.1 – Axis Bank Limited. In fact, there was tie up in between the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 for providing insurance cover to the international debit card holders. The opposite party No.1 was interested regarding providing insurance cover to attract more and more customers to the Axis Bank Limited and more and more customers may use option of international debit card facility. In our view, in fact it was the duty of the opposite party No.2 as well as opposite party No.1, both, to bring all relevant terms and conditions concerning with this insurance policy to the notice of the insured. In these circumstances, it will be justified to hold that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount awarded in this case.

18.              As a result, as per discussions above in detail, this Commission finds no illegality or invalidity in the impugned order dated 4^th January, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. The findings of the learned District Forum stands affirmed. I find no merit in these appeals and the same stand dismissed.

19.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing each of the appeals be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 23.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

 

CL