Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1712

SMT.RAMKALI VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH. SUNIL TIWARI

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 13.07.2017 passed in C.C.No.314/2016 by District Commission, Sehore)

 

SMT. RAMKALI VERMA,

W/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL VERMA,

R/O 481, BEHIND SEHORE CLUB,

SEHORE (M.P.)                                                                                                              … APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. BRANCH MANAGER,

    ICICI BANK, BRANCH-SEHORE (M.P.)

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE

    COMPANY LIMITED,

    REGISTERED OFFICE-ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE,

    414, VEER SAWARKAR MARG,

    NEAR SIDDHIVINAYAK MANDIR,

    PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI                                                                                         … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                      

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Sunil Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Subhash Dhote, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 05.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sehore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.314/2016, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been dismissed.

 

-2-

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant’s late husband Mangilal Verma (hereinafter referred to as ‘insured’) had opened an account no. 048101502748 in Sehore branch of opposite party no.1. He took home loan for a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- from the opposite party no.1 bank in March 2015 for a period of ten years. The opposite party no.1 asked the insured to get the loan insured from the opposite party no.2 so that in case of his death, burden for repayment of loan will not come on his legal representatives. The insured therefore, took insurance policy from the opposite party no.2 and had paid premium of Rs.41,207/- for a period of five years, which was adjusted by the opposite party no.1 in home loan issued by them. Thus the opposite party no.2 insured the complainant’s husband for a sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-

3.                On 29.02.2016, complainant’s late husband Mangilal Verma expired. The opposite parties were informed regarding death of insured and requisite documents were filed before them. It is alleged that despite of fulfilment of all formalities and assurance from the opposite parties, the death claim of the insured was not paid.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, seeking sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/-, along with compensation and costs.

-3-

4.                The opposite parties remained ex-parte before the District Commission.

5.                Heard. 

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that there was sudden death of the insured, which is covered under the scope of the insurance policy.  The opposite parties/respondents are deficient in service in not giving the insurance claim and burden regarding payment of loan instalments is shifted to the complainant/appellant. He argued that the District Commission has not properly appreciated the evidence available in the record.  Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed certain treatment papers/medical sheets along with this appeal, in order to support his submission.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 supporting the impugned order argued that sum insured was to be paid only in case of accidental death. 

8.                The ‘Personal Protect Policy’ (Exhibit C-1) a document put forward by the complainant/appellant, clearly demonstrates that the benefit amount covers:-

                   1) Death resulting from an accident,

2) Permanent Total Disablement resulting from an accident.

3)Temporary Total Disablement.

 

                                  -4-

It is apparently clear that the sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/- was payable in the event of accident only.  

9.                Upon careful perusal of the record and treatment papers/medical sheets, which are filed along with this appeal, we find that none of these documents illustrate that the insured had died due to an accident.

10.              Since the insured had not died in an accident, we find that the District Commission has committed no error or irregularity in passing the impugned order.

11.              The impugned order is therefore affirmed.  The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER