IMPORTANT POINT
“Claim for insurance coverage as given to deceased as a part of benefits for owning a debit card cannot be repudiated.”

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order 23.09.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.314 of 2017 which was filed against the order dated 13.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Visakhapatnam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.184 of 2016.

2. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the deceased, i.e. son of the Complainant had a saving bank account with the Petitioner. He was issued a debit card which was having an insurance coverage of Rs.10 Lakhs in case of personal accident. Unfortunately, he died in a road accident and an FIR under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 and 279 of IPC was registered. The Complainant claimed the benefit of the insurance under the debit card and wrote a letter to the Petitioner. In reply, the Petitioner took the stand that they had not received any claim of the Complainant and advised him to approach other branch of the Bank. Even after approaching the other branch of the Petitioner, the Complainant’s grievance was not sorted out and the claim under insurance was not paid. He then sent an e-mail dated 25.02.2016 to the Petitioner and in reply to the said e-mail, the Petitioner again directed the Complainant to visit their nearest branch for Redressal of the grievance. When no positive steps were taken by the Petitioner, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

3. Before the District Forum, the Petitioner had filed the written version wherein they had not denied their liability and took the stand that no claim for insurance had been filed by the Complainant.

4. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum. The District Forum after perusing the evidences before it ruled as under:

7. The Complainant filed evidence affidavit, narrating the entire facts mentioned in the complaint and on his behalf Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked. As seen from the Vakalat of the OPs 1 and 2 filed by

M/s D.Dakshina Munrthy Advocates, it seems the vakalat has been filed by OPs 1 and 2. However, the counter was filed by No.2 and evidence affidavit was filed by OP1. Hence, we conclude that the evidence was filed by the OPs 1 and 2 only. On behalf of the OPs 1 and 2, Exhibit B1 is marked. The complainant submitted his arguments orally and also filed a memo to that extent and the OPs submitted written arguments along with oral arguments stating that the complainant has to implead the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company as a necessary party since the OPs 1 and 2 have to refer the said required documents submitted by the complainant to the insurance company so that the insurance claim will be settled. Heard both sides.

8. The present complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs 1 and 2 with regarding to the claim of Rs.10 lakhs insurance policy amount as his son Senapathi Chiranjeevi is the policy holder. The OPs are stating that the complainant has not given the proper documentary evidence and the proper documentary evidence has to be furnished to the ICICI Lombard General Insurance to the OPs. So that the insurance claim will be settled. Even observing the Exhibit B1 document dated 13-07-2016, it confronts that the OPs are advised to follow the terms and conditions but the terms and conditions have not been enclosed with the said Exhibit B1 except website address. Observing the Exhibit A2 document, it reveals that the complainant is the nominee to the insured person Senapathi Chiranjeevi as he is unmarried. Exhibit A5 Fir reveals that the insured died due to accident on 22-10-2015. Exhibit A6 (1 page 2 reveals that the complainant is entitled for the insurance policy amount of Rs.10 lakhs in case of accident occurred to the insured i.e., his son Senapathi Chiranjeevi as per Exhibit A7, the complainant has submitt