State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. D. Sujatha, W/O. Late. Ramalingam, ... vs Axis Bank ( U.T.I. Bank) Hyderabad,And ... on 3 April, 2012
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA 999 of 2010 against C.C. 25/2010, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad Between: Smt. D. Sujatha, W/o. Late. Ramalingam, R/o. H.C. Quarter No.57, 1st B.N.A.P.S.P Yousuf Guda Police Lines, Hyderabad 500045. *** Appellant/ Complainant. And 1. Axis Bank ( U.T.I. Bank) R/o. 6-3-879/B, First Floor, G. Pulla Reddy Building, Greenlands Begumpet Road, Hyderabad. 2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd R/o. Fareast Plaza, H.No.3-6-111/8, Street No.18, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. *** Respondents/ Ops 1 & 2 Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. CH. Chandra Rao Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. V. Dharma Suri (R1) M/s. N. Mohana Krishna (R2) CORAM: HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT. & SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER. TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWELVE ORAL ORDER:
(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.) ***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband late D. Ramalingam, a Head Constable a debit card holder of Op1 bank entitled to comprehensive insurance coverage for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs valid from June, 2007 to June, 2012. While so on 26.5.2008 he died in a motor vehicle accident which was registered as a case in crime No. 413/2008 u/s 304A IPC. When she laid claim the insurance company repudiated the same on the ground that there is no point of sale (POS) transaction recorded on debit card, a pre-condition for payment of insurance benefit. Assailing the repudiation she filed the complaint claiming the amount covered under the policy together with interest and costs.
3) Op1 bank resisted the case. While admitting that the deceased was a debit card holder wherein he was entitled to benefit of insurance coverage, it alleged that at the time of issuance of debit card he was informed about terms of insurance by supplying key to usage booklet informing that the cardholder should use the card at least once in any merchant establishment prior to his death. The deceased failed to use the debit card even once. The insurance cover will come into force only after making first successful transaction. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any amount.
4) Op2 insurance company equally resisted the case. While the debit card holder died on 26.5.2008 it was informed on 10.8.2009, after one year three months. Even otherwise, the bank submitted a statement of account informing that there was no POS transaction recorded on the debit card which was a pre-condition for commencement of the policy. Moreover, he had to maintain minimum average quarterly balance of Rs. 5,000/- for metro and urban branches and Rs. 2,500/- for semi-urban and rural branches and at least one POS transaction in the financial year. Since the deceased had not used the card nor maintained the minimum balance it was not liable to pay any amount covered under the policy.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Asst. Vice-President, and the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Senior Legal Executive, and they got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the deceased did not use the debit card even once, a pre-condition for coverage of insurance, and therefore up-held the repudiation and dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that when the debit card was valid for a period of one year still there was time for him to use.
Even otherwise there was no term that said card should be used before his death. Having collected the premium it ought to have paid the amount covered under the policy. In fact he had used the card and encashed the amounts, and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainants husband a debit card holder was covered by insurance policy for Rs. 2 lakhs. It is also not in dispute that the cardholder died on 26.5.2008 evidenced under FIR Ex. A2, followed by panchanama Ex. A3, post-mortem examination Ex. A4 and finally charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle under Ex. A3. When the complainant laid the claim the same was repudiated under Ex. A6 on the ground that there is no point of sale (POS) transaction recorded on debit card, a pre-condition for payment of insurance benefit. As per clause-23 of the policy he was not entitled to the amount. The very statement of account Ex. B2 shows that though the deceased used the debit card to draw some amounts there was no POS recorded on debit card. Clause-23 reads as follows:
t least one point of sale transaction has to be done on the debit card of the card holder prior to 365 days immediately preceding the death of incident which is the cause for the claim.
In the very booklet issued by Op1 bank Ex. B1 there was a categorical mention that there was personal accident coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs for the holders of debit card. Under clause insurance following was made a mention.
Insurance : The UTI bank international debit card entitles you to a comprehensive insurance cover including zero lost card liability and purchase protection of up to Rs. 50,000/- and personal accident insurance of up to Rs. 2 lakhs free of charge. To avail of the personal accident insurance cover, it is necessary for you to use your debit card at a merchant outlet. The personal accident insurance cover will come in force only after you make your first successful payment transaction at any merchant outlet.
It is also not in dispute that in the policy, an exclusion clause is made in the following terms:
The policy becomes operational only after the 1st transaction through a POS (point of sale) (rest is omitted as unnecessary).
10) It is not in dispute that the complainants husband did not make any transactions using the debit card even once having received the card from the bank in June, 2007.
In the light of the stipulation and admittedly as the insured has not used the card even once, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of insurance as per the terms of the policy. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER 03/04/2012 *pnr UP LOAD O.K.