Follow Us
Ajay Joshi
Tribune News Service
Jalandhar, January 31
The District Consumer Redressal Forum, has directed HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd to pay compensation for Rs 1 lakh to Nisha Rani (complainant), who had filed a non-compliance case against the insurance firm.
In her complaint Nisha had filed that, her husband Harish Kumar had obtained a loan for Rs 3,76,438 in November 2014 from the branch manager of HDFC Bank Ltd, GT Road Branch, near Narinder Cinema, for purchasing a Tata Indica Vista car. He took the loan in his name and assured the bank that he would repay the loan in 60 instalments of Rs 8,091, to which the bank agreed and issued him the loan.
At the time of the advancement of the loan, Harish Kumar had got an insurance with the loan amount and had paid an insurance premium for Rs 6,438, including all risk covers mentioned in the policy cover note.
After receiving the premium, the bank had issued a policy number under ‘Sarv Suraksha Policy’, that was valid up to November 4, 2019.
However, the complainant mentioned that her husband had paid eight instalments before he died on July 7, 2015. An intimation regarding the death of Harish Kumar was accorded to the bank. After the death of Kumar, Nisha also paid two instalments of Rs 8,091 each in the car loan account. Afterwards, she approached the bank officials and submitted claim form after submitting all documents, but the claim of the complainant was not passed by the bank.
The complainant approached the office of HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd several times, but to no avail. She filed a complaint to Consumer Forum on January 19, 2016, challenging the repudiation letter, which she claimed, was illegal.
She also mentioned that, under the insurance policy cover, the bank be directed to reimburse the two instalments paid by her and further pay compensation for Rs 2,00,000 and litigation expenses for Rs 22,000.
Notice of the complaint was given to the bank and accordingly, the officials appeared and filed a joint reply and contested the complaint by objecting that the instant complaint was not maintainable against them and further submitted that the complainant, through her earlier complaint, sought the relief under the coverage of credit shield, though the same was never claimed by her in her earlier claim form.
Officials concerned also averred that the true facts were that the claim under the coverage of critical illness was lodged by the complainant.
The bank officials after scrutinising and perusal of the medical documents reached to the decision that the claim stands repudiated as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy
After scrutinising all documents placed by both the parties, the consumer forum stated that Harish Kumar admittedly purchased insurance policy in order to save the loan and it was also not in dispute that the premium was paid by him during his lifetime and the complainant submitted an insurance claim to the bank with the request that the loan amount, whatsoever remained unpaid towards her husband may be paid to the bank, but the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by it. Hence, the insurance firm was directed to pay the compensation for Rs1,00,000 for causing un-necessary humiliation, harassment and mental agony, to the complainant and also pay litigation expenses of Rs10,000 to the complainant. It was further made liable to pay interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint.
2