National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kurra Maroni vs The Branch Manger, Axis Bank & Anr. on 31 March, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 289 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 26/09/2012 in Appeal No. 653/2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. KURRA MARONI W/O LATE THVURYA, R/O BALNEPALLY VILLAGE DAMARCHERALA MANDAL, NALGONDA A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. THE BRANCH MANGER, AXIS BANK & ANR. OPP RTC BUS STAND, MIRYALGUDA TOWN, MIRYALGUDA MANDAL NALGONDA A.P 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURENCE CO LTD. REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, GROUND FLOOR.ASHOK PLAZA, NEXT TO WEIK FIELD CO, 32/2 NAGAR ROAD, PUNE - 411014 MAHARASTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate For the Respondent : For Axis Bank : Mr. S.M.Tripathi, Advocate
Alongwith Mr. R.Goyal, Advocate
For Bajaj Allianz : Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate
Dated : 31 Mar 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. By this order, I propose to dispose the above two revision petitions arising out of same order of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh in FA No. 653 of 2011 & 419 of 2011, involving similar question of law and fact.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that husband of the petitioner opened a Saving Bank Account with the opposite party bank. Against the said account, he was issued ATM/Debit Card. According to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions, the ATM card holder was extended insurance of Rs.5.00 lacs under an arrangement between the respondent bank as also the respondent insurance company. On 03.08.2009, husband of the complainant was attacked by his opponents resulting in his death regarding which crime case No. 99/09 under section 147, 148, 302 r/w section 149 IPC was registered. The complainant as per the insurance extended under the debit card lodged the insurance claim but it was repudiated. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the petitioner filed consumer complaint in the District Forum.
2. Opposite party No.1 bank resisted the complaint. In the written statement, it was admitted that deceased was an account holder of the bank under which debit card facility was given to him. It was also admitted that as per the terms and conditions of debit card, personal accident insurance coverage was extended to the deceased for Rs.5.00 lacs under an arrangement with OP No.2 but the insurance cover was subject to terms and conditions mentioned in the booklet forwarded alongwith debit card. According to OP No.1, the accident insurance was payable only if the debit card is used in at least one Point of Sale transaction with some merchant outlet within 365 days prior to the date of accident. Since there was no such transaction within 365 days preceding the death of husband of the petitioner, the insurance claim was rightly repudiated. It was also pleaded that as per the terms and conditions, in order to be entitled for accident insurance claim, the account holder was required to maintain average quarterly balance of Rs.5000/- in case of urban branch and Rs.25,000/- in case of semi urban or rural branch. This condition was also not fulfilled by the husband of the petitioner. As such on this count also, the insurance claim was rightly repudiated.
3. Opposite Party insurance company also took similar pleas in the written statement.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and appraisal of evidence came to the conclusion that opposite parties were deficient in service and directed them to pay to the petitioner Rs.5.00 lacs with 9% interest thereon alongwith compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides cost of Rs.2000/-.
5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, both the bank as well as insurance company approached State Commission by filing separate appeals. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeals of the respondents opposite parties; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaints.
6 Ld. Shri Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that State Commission has failed to consider that the respondents opposite parties had failed to establish that at the time of issue of debit card, the account holder was apprised about the terms and conditions of the insurance cover in particular that in order to get benefit of insurance cover, he was required to maintain minimum quarterly balance in his account during last 365 days and was also required to enter into atleast one debit card transaction with some merchant establishment during last 365 days preceding the accident resulting in injury / death of the card holder. It is contended that State Commission has committed an error in failing to appreciate that the actual transaction took place between the account holder and the bank and the complainant being wife could not have known whether or not the terms and conditions were properly explained to the insured. Learned counsel has thus urged that revision petition be allowed, order of State Commission be set aside and order of District Forum be restored.
7. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
9. The respondents have placed on record copy of user information sent to the card holder alongwith debit card. On perusal of the said information containing terms and conditions, it is seen that under the sub-heading 'Insurance' in main heading 'Advantage of Debit Card', it is recorded that personal accident insurance cover is extended to the card holder subject to certain conditions. The said clause is reproduced as under :
"INSURANCE "The AXIS Bank International Debit Card entitles you to a comprehensive insurance cover including zero lost card liability and Purchase Protection of upto Rs.50,000/- and Personal Accident Insurance of upto Rs.2,00,000/- 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 be considered to be in force at the time of the incident only if you have made a successful payment transaction at any Merchant Outlet using your Debit Card in the 365 days prior to the occurrence of the incident and have maintained a minimum Average Quarterly Balance (Rs.5000 in case your base branch is an Urban or a Metropolitan Branch and Rs.2500/- in case your base Branch is a Semi-Urban or a Rural Branch."
10. On reading of the above it is clear that in order to get benefit of the insurance cover, the card holder was required to use the debit card at some merchant outlet atleast once in 365 days prior to the date of occurrence resulting in death and the card holder was also supposed to maintain average quarterly balance of Rs.5000/- against which he had opened the account in an urban town. Case of the opposite parties is that the insurance claim was declined because the card holder did not indulge in any transaction at a merchant outlet in 365 days prior to the date of occurrence. On perusal of the copy of statement of account of the card holder, it is seen that he had not used the debit card at any merchant outlet during 365 days preceding his death. Therefore, in my view the respondent opposite parties were justified in declining the insurance claim.
11. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that respondents were justified in repudiating the insurance claim in view of the above user condition, then also, admittedly personal accident insurance cover has been extended to the card holder. Admittedly, the debit card holder was murdered in an attack by a group of people. Therefore, it cannot be said that late card holder died as a consequence of injury sustained in an accident. Therefore, also order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint cannot be faulted.
12. In view of the discussion above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or jurisdictional error which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER