National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gokal Chand (Deceased) & Anr. vs Axis Bank Limited & Anr. on 12 September, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 14/05/2019 in Complaint No. 605/2017 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. GOKAL CHAND (DECEASED) & ANR. THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES(L.R.S.):- MRS. PREM VATI. W/O. LATE SH. GOKAL CHAND. UNIT 6/504, CHURCH STREET NORTH PARAMATTA, NSW-2151. AUSTRALIA 2. 1(ii). SH. DEEPAK BHARDWAJ. S/O. LATE SH. GOKAL CHAND. UNIT-6/504, CHURCH STREET NORTH PARAMATTA, NSW-2151. AUSTRALIA. 3. 1(iii). MISS. SONAM BHARDWAJ. D/O. SH. LATE SH. GOKAL CHAND. UNIT-6/504, CHURCH STREET NORTH PARAMATTA, NSW-2151. AUSTRALIA 4. 1(iv). mrs. jyoti bhardwaj. W/O. SH/ HARSH BHARDWAJ. D/O. SH. GOKAL CHAND. UNIT-6/504, CHURCH STREET NORTH PARAMATTA, NSW-2151. AUSTRALIA 5. 2. MRS. OREM VATI. W/O. SH. LT. SH. GOKAL CHAND. R/O. H.NO. 1718, 1ST FLOOR, DLF, PHASE-4. GURUGRAM HARYANA-122002 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AXIS BANK LIMITED & ANR. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER. VIPUL SQUARE, 7TH FLOOR, SUSHANT LOK-1. GURUGRAM HARYANA 2. MAX IFE INSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. HEAD OFFICE:- 11 & 12TH FLOOR, DLF SQUARE, JACARANDA MARG, DLF CITY. GURUGRAM HARYANA-122002 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Arjun Grover, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 12 Sep 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)
The appellant/complainant alongwith her husband late Sh. Gokal Chand took a loan of about Rs.70 lakhs from Respondent No.1 Axis Bank Ltd. Their case is that the bank had insisted upon they taking an insurance cover on the life of late Sh. Gokal Chand and had also deducted an amount of Rs.624172/- towards the insurance premium on 25.7.2017 Late Sh. Gokal Chand was also subjected to some medical tests on 30.7.2017. He died on 8.8.2017. Opposite party No.2 to whom the proposal for grant of insurance cover was submitted, however, did not accept the proposal and vide letter dated 3.8.2017 decided to postpone the proposal for a period of six months. The letter dated 3.8.2017 addressed to late Sh. Gokal Chand, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"We have carefully reviewed Health Declaration Form & Medical Report of Mr. Gokal Chand. This proposal has been postpone till six month investigation received through the customer because of the following reason:
Decision Reason - Postpone till fully investigated.
For your reference, below mentioned are the details of sum assured:
Sr.No. Member ID Name of Life Insured Date of Birth Sum Assured (Applied) Sum Assured (Inforce) 1 6716877 Gokal Chand 10-Apr-60 7,099,172 0"
2. Thereafter, the premium amount was credited to the account of the complainants.
3. The complainants thereafter approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint impleading the bank as well as the insurance company as opposite parties in the complaint.
4. The complaint was resisted by both the respondents. Respondent No.1 - Axis Bank Ltd. interalia stated in its written version filed before the State Commission that the policy having been declined by the insurance company, the complainants had no cause of action against them and the complaint was bad for misjoinder of parties. The insurance company also contested the complaint. It was interalia stated in the written version filed by the insurance company that there was mismatch between the health declaration form filled by the deceased and the medical tests conducted on him. In the proposal form, he had maintained that he was not suffering from any disease. Therefore, the proposal was postponed for a period of six months and the amount of Rs.624172/- was refunded to Axis Bank under intimation to the proposer Sh. Gokal Chand.
5. The State Commission vide its order dated 14.5.2019 dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of this appeal.
6. There is no evidence of the proposal submitted by late Sh. Gokal Chand having been accepted by respondent No.2 and any life insurance policy having been issued to him. In the absence of acceptance of the proposal and issuance of an insurance policy to him, there was no relationship of insurer and insured between him and respondent No.2. In the absence of such a relationship, the respondent No.2 cannot be held liable for making payment to the complainant in terms of the proposal submitted by late Sh. Gokal Chand which respondent No.2 never accepted.
7. As far as Respondent No.1 Axis Bank Ltd is concerned they have having forwarded the proposal to the insurer before late Sh. Gokal Chand died, they cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant or to late Sh. Gokal Chand. Therefore, the order of the State Commission dismissing the consumer complaint against both the respondents does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER