JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

1.      The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) has been filed by Sugandha Singh (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner/Complainant”) against the impugned Order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 3040 of 2016, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that husband of the Petitioner, Sh. Rajeev Kumar, was working as Engineer with TV18 Broadcast Limited in Noida.  Unfortunately, the husband of the Petitioner passed away on 21.04.2013 due to sudden heart attack.   He had taken “Home Suraksha Plus Policy” bearing No. 00009307000100 for an amount of ₹22,426/- on 12.10.2009 which was valid up to 11.10.2014 for a period of 5 years from HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 1/Insurer”). There was no medical check-up required at the time of purchasing the Policy and this fact has also been mentioned in the Policy booklet. The HDFC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 2”) had also provided a loan of ₹11,00,000/- to husband of the Complainant by mortgaging of the said Policy of the husband of the Complainant vide loan account No. 588070078 in the month of November 2012.  After taking the said loan, the husband of the Complainant regularly paid the monthly instalments of said loan by paying ₹10,038/- per month to the Respondent No. 2, after a while the instalment amount was increased to ₹11,346/-. The Complainant and her children are the legal beneficiaries of late Sh. Rajeev Kumar and entitled to claim under the said Policy. The Complainant then lodged her claim of ₹11,35,892/- but the said claim was repudiated on the ground that the Complainant had not submitted the hospitalisation documents of her husband. The husband of the Complainant had died on the way to Hospital. The Complainant then submitted documents issued by Paras Hospital, 130, Sec-4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. The Complainant sent a Legal Notice to the Respondent No. 1, 2 and Manager, HDFC Ltd (HUB)., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No. 3”) by Registered Post on 21.12.2013. On the said Notice, the Respondent No. 1 replied that the claim of the Complainant is not maintainable. The Complainant received two letters dated 19.09.2013 and 13.12.2014 from the Respondent No. 1 which stated that “since no diagnosis could be made by the Doctors, in absence of investigation report and also as post-mortem was not done, diagnosis MYOCARDIA INFRACTION cannot be ruled out, hence case is recommended for repudiation”. Aggrieved by the wrongful repudiation of the claim, the Petitioner filed a Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad.

3.      The District Commission vide its Order dated 04.11.2016 dismissed the Complaint. The relevant extract of the Order of the District Commission are set out as below -

“The forum is of the view that the Ld. Ombudsman taking the sympathetic way has given justice to the Complainant despite the conditions of the insurance provided 75% of insured amount which has been received by the Complainant, on this basis the Complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed in the interest of justice.

ORDER
The Complaint of the Complainant is dismissed both parties will bear their own costs.  ”

4.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, the Petitioner filed its Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal vide the impugned Order dated 28.03.2018. The relevant extract of the Order of the State Commission are set out as below -

“On the basis of complete arguments I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to interfere in the Order passed by District Forum, therefore the appeal of the Appellant/Complainant is dismissed with the relief that as per law she is free to file her claim before any competent court of law. The both parties will bear their respective expenses.”

5.      Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petitioner raising the following key issues:

1. The husband of the Petitioner had taken a “Home Suraksha Plus Policy” which was valid up to 11.10.2014 for a period of 5 years from Respondent No. 1 and he passed away due to “Myocardial Infraction/Heart Attack” on 21.04.2013 after 3.5 years of Policy purchase. The Petitioner’s 1^st baby was born on 26.01.2007, the 2^nd baby was born on 17.11.2009 and 3^rd baby was born on 27.05.2016. At the time of the death of the husband, the Petitioner’s family was very poor and she was dependent on other’s favour/sympathy and having no source of income. The Petitioner’s father is handicapped and a retired person;
2. The Respondent No. 2 and 3 are ex-parte in Order dated 04.11.2016 by the District Commission but no comments are given in the said Order against Respondent No. 2 and 3 by the District Commission. Also, Respondent No. 1 and Nodal Officer, Grievance Redressal Officer, HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No .4”) were not present in the proceedings of the State Commission;
3. That before the death of the husband, the amount of loan that was paid through multiple instalments was ₹4,51,880/- and after the death, amount of ₹68,076/- was paid. Total amount of ₹5,19,919/- was paid. While the Ombudsman awarded an amount of 75% of the claim, i.e. ₹8,51,919/-.
4. That any Financial and Banking institution first checks the recovery points. These recovery points are whether the person is a salaried person or a businessman and whether the person is an income tax payee or not. Further, Building Map of the property is considered, whether it is passed from the concerned development authority and concerned municipal committee. A loan is given only after these criterions are met;
5. That to the utter shock to the Petitioner, while the Petitioner was waiting for getting an appointment with the DGM, a call was received from Respondent No. 3’s branch wherein it was informed that the Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation Act has been issued against the account of the Petitioner and the account has been classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The issued Notice is totally contradictory to the terms of the Policy;
6.  The action of the Respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law and has been initiated with malafide intentions in order to harass applicant for the reasons best known to them;
7. That even otherwise, the Notice is bad in law as wrong facts have been mentioned in the Securitisation Notice. In all it can be inferred that the Notice issued by the Respondent No. 3 is without verifying the actual position and Notice was issued in haste without application of mind and as such the Notice is bad in law and liable to be dismissed;
8. That the Petitioner hereby respectfully further submits that the whole action of the Respondent No. 3 is not in accordance with law; after coming into force of the Securitisation Act, Respondent No. 3 has adopted an approach of vengeance irrespective of the fact whether any provisions of the said Act or the rules made thereunder have been followed or not;
9.  That the action of the Respondent No. 3 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is highly arbitrary, malafide, irrational, unreasonable, unconscionable, without jurisdiction, without any justification, and against the principle of natural justice and hence the Notice u/s 13(2) of the above act and the action thereafter of the said Notice is liable to be set-aside and quashed within one month i.e. from April 2018 as per records;
10.  The Petitioner has not committed any default with the meaning and definition of default in view of the alleged blank loaning documents. These documents cannot be enforced under law by the Respondent No. 3. Moreover, there have been variation in the contract and as such the alleged documents have attained the nature of nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. The Respondent No. 3 be directed to provide full statement of account, the documents alleged to have been executed by the Petitioner and the documents pertaining to alleged mortgages;
11. That all what has happened is due to the Respondent No. 3’s officials having an eye over the property who want to sell the property at throw away price to their favoured persons and make wrongful gains to themselves and wrongful loss to the Petitioner and the entire exercise is malafide;
12.  The Respondent No.3 has wrongly and illegally calculated and added/charged/compounded interest/penal interest against the Petitioner;
13. That the Petitioner herein shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the ex-parte Orders are not granted. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent No. 3;
14. That the Ombudsman’s Order passed for 75% amount of total insurance is in favour of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 is bound to follow the Order;
15. Reliance is placed on the following cases:
16.  
    1.  II (2013) CPJ 178 (NC) - Yogesh Kr. Sharma vs. N.I. Co. Ltd.
    2. 2009 (1) CCC 005 (P&H) - Karan Trader & Ors. vs. Punjab & Sindh Bank
    3. 1999 (6) SCC 400 - United India Insurance vs Ajmer Singh Cotton
    4. II (2013) CPJ l (NC) -  Hera Lal & Sons vs. Royal Jordan Airlines

17. 5.  (2013) CLT 4  - LDA vs Syam Kapoor

    6. IX (2012) SLT 533 - P.C. Chako vs. LIC 

    7.      II (2011) CPJ 246 SC - Ajay Verma vs UII Co. Ltd. 

     

    6.      The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Complainant argued that the HDFC Ltd. has harassed Sugandha Singh and her family to recover the loan amount in place of recovering the loan from the Insurance Company. The Complainant is being mentally harassed since April 2013 till now. That when enquiry was made to the HDFC Ltd. regarding the record of loan account, they stated that they are not covered under the Right to Information Act 2005 and did not provide any information. After the death of Sh. Rajeev Kumar, no claim was lodged by Respondent No. 2 and 3 for loan recovery. A total amount of ₹13,71,875/- was paid to the HDFC Ltd. after the Ombudsman’s award, however the loan amount was ₹11,35,892/- and therefore extra payment of ₹2,35,983/- was made as interest. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to the extra amount that was paid.  The Petitioner has 3 children, two daughters aged 13 years & 9 years and a son aged 7 years and a claim of ₹50,000/- is also made for each of the daughters. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner referred to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. 1999 (6) SCC 400 and Hira Lal & Sons v. M/s Royal Jordanian Airlines, 2013 (2) CLT, in support of granting the interest amount.

    7.      In compliance of the Order dated 10.08.2023, the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has filed a Gazette Notification dated 25.04.2017 regarding awards passed by Insurance Ombudsman.

    8.      This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel of both parties and have gone through the material available on record.

    9.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint since the Petitioner/Complainant had already accepted 75% of the insured amount which was granted to her by the Insurance Ombudsman in terms of his Order under Rule 16(3) of RPG Rules, 1998, passed on 29.12.2014.

    10.    As per the Rules, such Order was binding on the Insurance Company, but the Complainant in the event of being dis-satisfied had the option to challenge the same.

    11.    She further gave her unconditional consent letter of acceptance of the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, and her letter in this regard is on record at Page 115 of the Paper Book.

    12.    In this view of the matter, she certainly cannot challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Order of the Insurance Ombudsman at least in a Consumer Forum, since such Order was passed by a statutory Authority not subordinate to the Consumer Fora and having once accepted the same unconditionally, she cannot assail it on merits except before any Court possessed of Writ jurisdiction.

    13.    For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the concurrent decisions of both the Fora below.  The Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

    14.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.