Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Subhash Chandra, Member
HDFC Bank Limited – Petitioner
versus
Rani Singh Late Raj Kumar Singh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1024 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 30/10/2015 in Appeal No. 10/2011 of the State Commission Jharkhand)
Decided on 4.1.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Devmani Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Paras Chaudhary, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Concurrent findings - Where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision - Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Accident – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference in Revisional Jurisdiction - From the records it is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in appeal. The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidences led by the parties and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re- appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction – Thus, where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, this petition is liable to fail – Thus, petition dismissed. [Paras 14 to 16]
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Subhash Chandra, Member—This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 10 of 2011 dated 30.10.2015 emerging from order in consumer complaint no. 79 of 2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hazaribagh (in short, ‘District Forum’) dated 26.07.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that it had issued a Gold Debit Card (GDC) to Mr Raj Kumar Singh, husband of the respondent in 2009. The card had an accident insurance cover for Rs.5,00,000/- included as an additional benefit. It is stated by the petitioner that on 05.01.2009 the petitioner changed the terms and conditions with respect to the personal accident cover for the card holder by incorporating the condition that the cover would be available only if there was one transaction from the debit card within a period of 6 months prior to the death of the card holder. According to the petitioner, this change was communicated to the card holder on 05.01.2009 by way of the Bank Statement and also by way of a letter. This information was also displayed in the Bank’s branches.
3. On 29.03.2009 the husband of the respondent expired in an accident and she submitted an accident insurance claim under the scheme of the GDC on 24.4.2009. This claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 13.05.2009 on the ground that the deceased had not completed a transaction in the 6 months prior to his demise. The respondent issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 18.06.2009 and thereafter filed consumer complaint no. 79 of 2000 before the District Forum. This complaint was allowed without appreciating the submissions of the petitioner and it was directed to indemnify the complainant as per the insurance cover assured along with compensation of Rs.3,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- and interest at the rate of 9%. An appeal (No. 10 of 2011) was filed before the State Commission challenging this order which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2015. The revision petitioner has prayed that the orders of the lower fora be set aside as they have erred in appreciating the facts and terms and conditions of the complimentary insurance cover scheme under the GDC.
4. The petition has been resisted by the respondent by way of a written statement. It is contended that the matter has been rightly adjudicated by the fora below which have considered the facts and arguments of both sides and come to the finding that the onus of proving that the change in the terms and conditions had been correctly communicated to the respondent lay on the petitioner which had not been done. It is submitted that the petitioner had relied only upon the letter of repudiation dated 13.05.2009 and another letter dated 18.06.2014 denying the claim in response to the legal notice and therefore the State Commission had rightly dismissed the appeal. The State Commission had also correctly noted, as per the respondent, that no document had been filed in support of the contention that the change in terms and conditions had been uploaded on the official website of the petitioner. Therefore, its conclusion that the respondent had not been properly communicated of the change which was retrospective in nature and therefore violative of clause 3.5.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and respondent no. 1 and perused the material on record carefully. Both parties were provided an opportunity to file their short synopsis of arguments which has also been done.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued as per the revision petition. The main issue raised by him was whether the late husband of the respondent was informed of the changes in the terms and conditions of the complimentary insurance policy. He has urged that the bank account statement dated 05.01.20
