IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 179/2020 (Filed on 03/11/2020)
Complainants : Mrs. Manjumol T.S.
D/o. Late Suresh T.G.
Thundathil House,
Koruthodu P.O.
Mundakkayam,
Erumeli North village,
Kottayam - 686513
(Adv. Nithin M.K)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Vijaya Bank,
Mundakkayam Branch,
Kottayam – 686513
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
(Adv. Sharlo George)
(2) The Senior Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Department – RuPay Insurance
Programme 18-19,
DO 142300, 1st Floor,
NCL Premises, Plot No.C-6,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Above Central Bank of India,
Babdra East, Mumbai
Maharashtra - 400051
(Adv. P.G. Girija)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant is the only legal heir of Late Manumon T.S, S/O Late Suresh T.G.Manumon T.S was an account holder and ATM card holder of the first opposite party, which is insured under second opposite party. Manumon T.S died in a vehicle accident on 08/05/2018 at Dindugal District, Tamil Nadu State. The parents of the complainant and Manumon T.S also died in the said accident. Late Manumon T.S was holding an account of the first opposite party with account No.207801011003549 and was using an ATM/Rupay Card with No.6075892078006464 issued by the first opposite party.
The ATM/Rupay card was insured with the second opposite party under its
Rupay Insurance programme which offers an insurance of Rs.2 Lakhs on accidental death or permanent total disability to the Rupay card holders. Complainants Brother Manumon T.S died in a vehicle accident on 08/05/2018 at Dindugal leaving behind the complainant as his only legal heir as the parents also died in the said vehicle accident.
A claim for the insurance amount was submitted before the second opposite
party through the first opposite party in the year 2018.Necessary documents were also submitted as instructed by the opposite parties. The post mortem certificate was submitted to the second opposite party as per their letter dated 03/09/2019. Another letter was issued by the second opposite party on 06/11/2019 seeking a clear and detailed copy of Post mortem report regarding the name difference of Manumon T.S in the post mortem report and a certificate from the concerned authority incorporating the correction in the name of Manumon T.S was also submitted to the second opposite party.
The opposite parties failed to honor or repudiate the claim of the complainant. The act of the opposite parties in delaying the genuine claim of the
complainant is deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice.
This complaint is filed for getting a direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with 12% interest to the
complainant. Also, to allow the complainant to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The Branch Manager, Mundakayam Branch of The Bank of
Baroda filed the version of the first opposite party. The Divisional Manager, Kottayam of the second opposite party filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is as follows. The first opposite party
Vijaya Bank amalgamated with Bank of Baroda as per Gazette Notification dated 02/01/2019 and came in to force on 04/01/2019. The complainant’s brother Manumon T.S was an account holder and ATM card holder of the first opposite party with account No.207801011003549 and ATM Card No.6075892078006464 insured under the second opposite party.
As per the corporate tie up arrangement with the second opposite party ATM/Rupay debit card was insured by the second opposite party under its Rupay Insurance program which offers an insurance amount of Rs 2 Lakhs on accidental death or permanent total disability to the Rupay card holders. Complainant’s brother Manumon T.S died in a vehicle accident on 08/05/2018 at Dindugal District, Tamil Nādu State leaving the complainant as the only legal heir as his parents were also died in the said vehicle accident. The first opposite party has no responsibility for the payment of the insurance amount. If the complainant is entitled for getting the insurance amount it is to be paid by the second opposite party.
The version of the second opposite party is that the complainant’s brother
Manumon T.S was a holder of Rupay- Non premium card issued by the first opposite party. The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) introduced
insurance cover of Rs.1,00,000/- for non-premium cards and Rs 2,00,000/- for Rupay Premium cards for accidental death or permanent disabilities vide Circular: Rupay/2018-19/003 dated 5-4-2018.The insurance policy was availed by NPCI Policy No.14230042180100000012 is subject to the clauses.
The said Manumon was holding a Rupay Non-Premium card and hence the sum insured for the said card was Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.2,00,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Even though the complainant submitted the claim, she did not submit the required documents for processing the claim. The legal heirship certificate was submitted after a long time. The name of the deceased was Manumohan in the post mortem report where as his name was Manumon. Clarification in this regard was sought and it was obtained after several requests. There is no purposeful delay on the part of the first opposite party in processing the claim.
The second opposite party had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant’s account on 18/12/2020. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- or any interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A8. Antony Mathew, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mundakayam Branch, of the first opposite party filed Proof affidavit and was examined as DW1. Asha R Thomas, Divisional Manager, Kottayam of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 to B3 and was examined as DW2.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced it is evident that the complainant’s brother Manumon T. S was an account holder of the Vijaya Bank with account No. No.207801011003549 and having an ATM card with No.607589207800646. The said Manumon T.S died in a vehicle accident on 08/05/2018 at Dindugal District, Tamil Nadu State. The parents of Manumon T.S were also died in the said accident leaving behind the complainant as the only legal heir of Late Manumon T.S. The complainant filed the claim for the insurance amount before the second opposite party through the first opposite party in 2018. Ext A1 is the Legal Heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar, Taluk office Kanjirappally certifying that Manjumol T.S is the legal heir of Late T.G Suresh who expired on 08/05/2018 and his wife Lekha Suresh who expired on 09/05/2018 and their Son Manumon who expired on 08/05/2018.
Ext A2 is the Copy of the Bank Passbook of Manumon T.S with account No.207801011003549 with the first opposite party.
Ext A3 is the ATM/Rupay Debit Card with No.6075892078006464 issued by the
first opposite party to Manumon T.S
Ext A4 is the Copy of the letter dated 03/09/2019 issued by the second opposite party requesting to submit the detailed post mortem report of the deceased Manumon T.S
Ext A5 is the Copy of the letter issued by the second opposite party dated 06/11/2019 seeking a clear and detailed copy of post mortem report regarding the name difference of Manumon T.S in the post mortem report and certificate from the concerned authority incorporating the correction in the name of Manumon T.S
Ext A6 is the copy of the Legal notice issued by the complainant on 28/02/2020
to the first and second opposite parties.
Ext B1 is the Policy copy availed by National Payments Corporation of India vide Policy No.14230042180100000012 and terms and conditions.
Ext B2 is the Copy of Payment Voucher dated 18/12/2020 showing the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of the complainant as claim in Policy No.14230042180100000012
Ext B3 is the Circular: Rupay/2018-19/003 dated 05/04/2018 issued by National Payments Corporation of India with regard to Rupay Insurance Program FY 2018-19.
DW1 deposed that “Rupay cards ]e ImÀUpIfpv þ insta card, premium card etc. Premium card \mWv 2 e£w cq] In«p¶Xv. Cu tIkn acn¨ a\ptamsâ ImÀUv non premium card BsW¶v ]dªm icnbtÃ? (Q) Shown Exhibit A3 (original) CXv non premium card BWv. Non premium card \v eligible 1 lakh BsW¶v ]dbp¶p? (Q) AsX. 1 e£w cq]bmWv. kXyhmMvaqe¯n cv e£w cq] sImSp¯p F¶v ]dªncn¡p¶Xv R§Ä¡v In«nb information sâ ASnØm\¯nemWv.
DW2 deposed that Hcp claim submit sNbvXp Ignªm process sNt¿ hn[w documents submit sNbvXn«nà F¦n kzoIcnt¡ \S]SnIfpw Ext.B3  ]dRvRn«pv. Documents submit sNbvXn«nà F¦n hmZn¡pw Bank \pw documents Bhiys¸«v notice Abbv¡Ww F¶v Ext.B3  ]dªn«ntà (Q) Member Bank \v Abbv¡Ww F¶mWv document  ]dªn«pÅXv. (A) A{]Imcw hmZnt¡m member bank t\m notice Ab¨n«ptm F¶v file ]cntim[n¨m am{Xta ]dbm³ km[n¡pIbpÅq. Ds¦n lmPcm¡mw. A§s\ bmsXmcp t\m«okpw Ab¨n«nà F¶v tIÊnsâ Bhiy¯n\mbn Ifhmbn samgn ]dbpI BWv F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.
The complainant filed the claim for the insurance amount before the second opposite party through the first opposite party in 2018.Ext B3 is the Circular issued by National Payments Corporation of India dated 05/04/2018 regarding Rupay insurance program FY 2018-19. As per this circular claim for insurance benefit against policy will need to be submitted by the first opposite party. The first opposite party is required to register the claims directly with the second opposite party. The claim will be settled in 10 working days from the date of receiving the complete document set.
If the documents are not received within 60 days of claim intimation, the first remainder, hard copy letter will be issued to the first opposite party by the Second Opposite party followed by an Email communication.
The second remainder hard copy letter will be sent to the first opposite party by the second opposite party within 81 days from claim intimation followed by an Email.
Ongoing through the above discussion, it is evident that the complainant had filed the claim for the insurance amount before the second opposite party through the first opposite party in the year 2018. The second opposite party ascertained that the Ext A3 ATM/Rupay Debit Card with No.6075892078006464 issued by the first opposite party to Manumon T.S is a Non premium card. Dw1 had also deposed that Ext A3 card is a non-premium card. It is clear that the complainant is eligible for Rs.1,00,000/- as insurance claim as per Ext B1 insurance policy of NPCI. The second opposite party issued the Ext A4 letter on 03/09/2019 requesting to submit the detailed post mortem report of the deceased Manumon T.S. Also, the second opposite party issued Ext A5 letter only on 06/11/2019 seeking a clear and detailed copy of post mortem report regarding the name difference of Manumon T.S in the post mortem report and certificate from the concerned authority incorporating the correction in the name of Manumon T.S Ext B2 reveals that the second opposite party made the payment of claim amount of Rs.1, 00,000/- only on 18/12/2020.
This clearly establishes the fact that the second opposite party failed to make the payment of claim within 10 working days after receiving the complete document set. The second opposite party failed to make the payment of insurance amount to the complainant even on receipt of Ext A6 Le-gal Notice dated 28/02/2020.
The delay caused by the second opposite party in processing the insurance claim and making the payment of insurance amount to the complainant within the timeframe set out by NPCI had caused much inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. This act on the part of the second opposite party is fault, imperfection, inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which has been undertaken to be performed in pursuance of the insurance policy which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
.
On the basis of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
- The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for the, mental agony and inconvenience due to the deficiency in service on their part with cost Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of July, 2023
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
Nil
Sworn statement from the side of opposite party
Dw1 – Antony Mathew
Dw2 – Asha Rose Thomas
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of legal heirship certificate dtd.05-04-19
A2 – Copy of passbook 207801011003549
A3 – Copy of ATM/Rupay Debit card
A4 – copy of letter dtd.03-09-19
A5 – Copy of letter 06-11-2019
A6 – Copy of legal notice dtd.28-02-2020
A7- Postal receipts
A8-Postal AD card
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of policy with terms and conditions
B2 – Copy of payment voucherdtd.18-12-20
B3 - Copy of circular : RuPay/2018-19/003
By Order
j/4cs Assistant Registrar
