In a group insurance policy linked to bank accounts, if the policy is silent on joint account holders and no specific exclusion exists, a single premium covers both joint holders, and the full sum insured is payable upon the death of one holder.

ORDER

1. The present two Revision Petition (RPs) have been filed - one by the Complainant Smt. Meena Bai Chelik ( RP No. 894 of 2017) and other by the Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. ( Insurance Company) ( RP No. 1095 of 2017) under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 17.01.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 616 of 2016 in which order dated 01.08.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Durg (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.15 of 452 was challenged. The Complainant in RP No. 89 of 2017 prayed for allowing the RP and restoring the order of the District, while Insurance Company in RP No. 1095 of 2017 prayed for setting aside the order of the State Commission.

2. Notice was issued in both the cases and parties also filed their written arguments / synopsis.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that husband of the complainant Late Sh. Shankar Chelik had a Saving Bank account in the branch of the District Sehkari Kendriya Bank Ltd. ( Bank) and from the said account the premium was being deducted which was deposited with the Liberty Videocon General India Ins.Co. Ltd. ( Insurance Company) against which a Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy was obtained. According to the said policy, in the event of untimely death of the insured, insurance amount of Rs.5.00 lakh was payable to the nominee / heir (i.e. complainant herein).

4. It is further the case of the complainant that on 12.09.2014, husband of the complainant while working in Fiat Showroom, Raipur suddenly fell and sustained grievous injuries on his head and blood started oozing out from his ear and he was immediately taken for treatment to Apollo Hospital and during treatment, he expired on 18.09.2014.

5. Information of the accident was given to the police and post mortem of deceased husband was got done. Information of said accident alongwith all the documents through the Bank was sent to the Insurance Company. The claim form was also filled but payment of insurance amount was not made by the Insurance Company and letter of repudiation was sent by the Insurance Company which was received through the Bank. The ground taken by the Insurance Company in the letter of repudiation was that the deceased was not the primary account holder. It is also the case of the complainant that insurance policy and its conditions were not provided to the insurance holder or to the complainant by the Insurance Company and neither it has been told by the Bank that in the joint account, insurance of joint account holder is not covered. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed CC before District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 01.08.2016 allowed the complaint qua the Insurance Company and dismissed the complainant against the Bank ( Opposite Party no. 1 and 2 / non applicants before the District Forum). Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 17.01.2017 partly allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved of the said order of the State Commission, both the Insurance Company and Complainant are before this Commission now in the present RPs.

6. Petitioner in RP No. 894 of 2017 has challenged the order of the State Commission on following grounds:

a. State Commission erred in holding that respondent no.3 Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as insurance amount to