2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35744
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mrs. R. Abirami – Appellant
Versus
DHFL Paramerica life insurance – Respondent
SC/33/CC/17/2019
Date of filing : 02.01.2019.
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT C.C.No.17 of 2019 Tuesday, the 18th day of March 2025 Mrs.R.Abirami, W/o Late. P.Jayapalan, No.9/3, Pushpa Nagar Main Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... Complainant - Vs –
1. DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance, Represented by its Manager, 2nd Floor, Rashmi Towers, 1, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Opp-Harrison Hotel, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
2. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, (formerly The Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited), Represented by its Manager, Kodambakkam Branch, Old No.34, New No.36, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Ashok Nagar, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.
(Amended as per Order dated 12.12.2022, Passed in M.P.No.169 of 2022) ... Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s.G.Sugadev Rajaguru Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 :M/s.A.S.Kailasam Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 :M/s.Arunachalam This Complaint came up for final hearing on
04.03.2025, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :- O R D E R R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This Complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the Opposite Parties, for the following reliefs:-
(i) To direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to jointly, severally and individually pay a sum of Rs.18,30,912/-, towards the sum assured under Policy No. GC000006 with accrued benefits to the Claimant in pursuance of the clause in benefit schedule; OR Alternatively direct the opposite party No.1 to pay this amount to the opposite party No.2 in pursuance of the insurance policy;
(ii) To direct the opposite party No.2 to issue No Due Certificate after appropriation of sum assured under the policy;
(iii) To direct the opposite party No.2 to return the original documents to the Complainant;
(iv) To pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and deficiency in service;
(v) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that, her husband Shri. Pachaiappan Jayapalan had obtained Loan for a sum of Rs.7,26,908/- on 31.07.2015, and a sum of Rs.12,29,024/- on 12.08.2015 and in all a sum of Rs.19,55,932/- from the opposite party No.2, namely Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Kodambakkam, Branch, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24, under Housing Loan Code No.00001587, Application No.0117297, on his property namely Plot No.22, Metro City View House Site, Ayanambakkam, Chennai 600 095. The original sale deed executed in favour of the complainant's husband Shri. Pachaiappan Jayapalan and other documents were deposited with the opposite party No.2. As requested and insisted by the opposite party No.2, the complainant's husband had taken a Life Insurance Policy bearing Policy No. GC000006 for the entire loan amount of Rs.19,55,930/- for the entire loan period of 10 years i.e. from 31st July 2015 to 30th June, 2025, from the opposite party No.1 namely DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. After examination of health conditions of the complainant's husband and perusal of all previous medical history, the opposite party No.1 had accepted the said Life Insurance Policy and the complainant's husband had also paid the said Single Premium of Rs.1,37,665.40 to the opposite party No.1, which is a sister concern of the opposite party No.2. As requested by the opposite party No.2, the complainant was also mentioned as Co-Applicant in the subject mentioned Housing Loan. The sum assured was Rs.19,55,932/-. The opposite party No.1 issued benefit schedule stating that the coverage in force will be payable to the Claimant.
(a) The Housing Loan has to be repaid by way of 120 Equitable Monthly Installments of Rs.30,376/-. The complainant's husband had paid EMIs till November, 2016, without any default or delay.