Haryana

Ambala

CC/189/2021

Manju - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Aman Bawa

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	189 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	21.06.2021
Date of decision	:	08.06.2023

 

Manju aged 50 years widow of Shri Ajay Thakur resident of H.No.21, Shalimar Colony, Ambala City (Adhar Card No.9842 4853 9148)

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. HDFC Bank (Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.) Ist Floor Sudershan Towers, Cross Road 1, Punjabi Mohalla, Opposite Garg Hospital, Ambala Cantt., through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC ERGO (General Insurance Co. Ltd) Ist Floor Sudershan Towers, Cross Road 1, Punjabi Mohalla, Opposite Garg Hospital, Ambala Cantt, through its Branch Manager.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Aman Bawa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Raj Kumar Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 ex parte vide order dated 30.11.2021.                              

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.14,90,780/- of health Insurance alongwith interest or to adjust this amount with the loan account of deceased Ajay Thakur.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as medical procedure expenses as detailed in the complaint.
3. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony, deficiency-in-service and unfair trade practice.
4. To pay legal fee of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant.

                                                OR

Grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that vide File No.635009293/ANISA.  the late Shri Ajay Thakur husband of the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.14,00,000/- for the terms of 20 years, payable in 240 installments from OP No.1 and EMI of the same was fixed as Rs.13,418/- per month @ Rs.9.90% fixed up to 24 months from the date of first installment. As per the loan agreement, it was mentioned on Page No.6, clause No.9(b) that in order of insurance of borrower: the borrower may avail health and/or life insurance for himself with HDFC as the sole beneficiary under the Policy/policies. As such, upon the assurance given by OP No.2,  Ajay Thakur purchased insurance policy bearing No. 2918202835157400000 valid for the period from 20.6.2019 to 19.6.2024 midnight, securing the amount of Rs.14,90,780/- qua loan account No.635009293. HDFC ERGO and HDFC Housing Finance are the sister concern companies and it was agreed by the Bank itself with Ajay Thakur in the presence of complainant Anju and Akash son of Ajay Thakur that if during the pendency of loan any causality happens to Ajay Thakur in that eventuality the standing loan amount of the house shall be adjusted and set-off. In the first week of Aug. 2020, the husband of complainant Ajay Thakur felt chest pain and was taken to Heart Centre, Civil Hospital, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. The doctor diagnose that it is a heart problem and the medical procedure is required to be operated immediately as a result of which Ajay Thakur was operated and stunt was installed in his heart. The complainant has spent Rs.1,00,000/- upon the medicines, stunt and treatment of Ajay Thakur but he could not survive and passed away on 5.8.2020. After death of Ajay Thakur husband of complainant, the complainant and her family members visited the OPs and requested them to set-off the housing loan under the policy in question but to no avail and as such, the complainant was compelled to pay the loan EMI on regular basis. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that OP No.1 is HDFC Limited and not HDFC Bank as mentioned in the complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable; this Commission is not vested with territorial jurisdiction;  the grievance of the complainant is mainly against the insurance company for settlement of death claim of her deceased husband and not against OP No.1 and the same is also premature as the said claim of the complainant has not been decided by O.P.No.2 etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission as the borrower availed the Home loan of Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.90,780/- from OP No.1. Now after the death of the husband of the complainant, the complainant is trying to avoid her legal liability and OP No.1 being a secured creditor has every right to recover the dues. As on 25.08.2021, a sum of Rs.14,41,744/- in Loan account no.635009293 and Rs.58,339/- in Loan account no.642867112 is outstanding.  The settlement of insurance claim is as per the terms and conditions of the insurance and OP No.1 has no role in it. The loan accounts are in default as on date and also there is public money involved in form of these loans. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2021.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-26 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Aditya Kochar, Assistant Manager and authorized representative of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 153-155, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/16 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.1.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.1 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not making payment of the remaining loan amount after the death of the insured, despite the fact that insurance policy in that regard was obtained from OP No.2 and also the death of the insured occurred during existence of the said policy, the OPs are deficient in providing service and guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 submitted that   since it has no role whatsoever with regard to insurance policy in question, as the same was issued by OP No.2 only and there is not an iota of evidence that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, while releasing the housing loan amount to the husband of the complainant, as such, complaint against OP No.1 deserves to be dismissed.
9.           First coming to the objection taken by the OPs regarding territorial jurisdiction, it may be stated here that because the complainant is resident of Ambala, as is evident from the headnote of this complaint, therefore this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide this complaint in view of Section 34 (d) of the CPA 2019.
10.           From the loan agreement Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/8, it transpires that the husband of the complainant-Ajay Thakur had obtained housing loan to the tune of Rs.14 lacs from OP No.1, repayable @Rs.13,464/- for the period of 24 months on fixed rate basis. The said housing loan was secured under the insurance policy Annexure C-14,  having been issued by OP No.2, for the period from 20.06.2019 to 19.06.2024, for major medical illness and procedures, personal accident death, permanent total disablement, dependent child education benefit, fire and allied perils and burglary housing breaking theft. It is also coming out from the record that the insured Ajay Thakur died of sudden massive cardiac stroke in Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. on 05.08.2020, and his death certificate is tendered as Annexure C-1. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that since the housing loan in question was got insured by the husband of the complainant, under the policy in question, as such, after his death, the OP No.2 had either paid the sum assured to the complainant or had deposited the said amount directly to the Bank, OP No.1, but it failed to do so, as a result of which, the complainant was forced to enter into this litigation. However, to justify non-payment of housing loan OP No.2 was required to put-forth its version before this Commission, but, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking  its version, yet, nobody appeared on its behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.11.2021. This act of OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted, as such, we have no reason to disbelieve the complainant. Since the husband of the complainant died due to heart attack during the subsistence of the policy in question, therefore, OP No.2 being insurer is liable to pay the sum assured amount alongwith interest to the complainant or to deposit the said amount directly with the OP No.1. From the perusal of policy document C-14, it is evident that the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.14,90,780/-, under the head “Major Medical Illness and Procedures”, as such, the OP No.2 is liable to pay Rs.14,90,780/-, alongwith interest or to pay the said amount to the OP No.1 directly.  It is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses.
11.           As far as OP No.1 is concerned, it may be stated here that because no deficiency in service has been proved on its part by the complainant, as such, the present complaint filed by the complainant against it is liable to be dismissed.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.1 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-
    1. To pay Rs.14,90,780/-, to the complainant, or to pay the said amount to the OP No.1 directly, alongwith interest @ 4% per annum, from the date of death of the husband of the complainant i.e 05.08.2020, onwards, till realization.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses.

          The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.2 shall pay interest @6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 08.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President