AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member
The present Complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the Complainant is that late Dr. Sumit Kumar Ojha, husband of the Complainant obtained a home loan of Rs.83,00,000/- and a loan of Rs.39,00,000/- against the Property from Opposite Party No.-1. The Complainant was co-applicant in both the loans. The husband of the Complainant took Insurance Plan - "Secure Mind" for a total cover of Rs.21,18,915/- against illness, personal accident & job loss etc. from Opposite Party No.2 by paying one time premium of Rs.1,29,784/-. As per the Complainant, amount of Rs.20,215/- was also deducted by Opposite Party No.-2 toward another Insurance Policy "ICICI Home Safe Plus" covering fire, burglary etc. The total amount paid as premium was Rs.1,50,000/- as advance for five years insurance plan. Opposite Party No.2 secured Rs.21,18,915/- as against the total loan of Rs.1,22,00,000/- (i.e., Rs.83,00,000/- of Home Loan + Rs.39,00,000/- of Loan against Property) and Rs.1,00,81,000/-was left without Insurance coverage. On 02.01.2012 husband of the Complainant died. Opposite Party No.2 Company paid Rs.21,18,915/- as death claim. At the time of taking the Policy the Complainant and her husband were not aware and later came to know that another Policy by the name of "Term Insurance Plan" was available in the market which was much better and would have covered the entire risk for the loan amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/- with an annual premium of just Rs.21,716/- for five years. Due to limited knowledge of the insurance sector, husband of the Complainant had no option but to accept the insurance plan of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 thereby indirectly forced the husband of the Complainant to take this 'useless' insurance plan. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, Complainant filed the present Consumer Complaint with following prayer-
"1. To pass an order in favour of the complainant & against the opposite parties to waive off balance loan amount of Rs.56,81,427 & Rs.34,63,821 respectively in both loan account no. LBDEL 00001824639 (Home loan) for Rs.83,00,000/- & LBDEL 00001824898 (loan against property )from the date of Late Sunit Kumar Ojha's death .
To pass an order in favour of the complainant & against the opposite parties to return back all amount (Rs.31,23,066, January2012-November2013, 23 months ) which were paid by Dr Shipra Tripathi in form of EMI in both loan accounts after late Sunit Kumar Ojha's death with interest.
To pass an order in favour of the complainant & against the opposite parties to compensate Dr Shipra Tripathi for mental torture for which she passed through from the date of Late Sunit Kumar Ojha's death for forcing improper insurance plan.
To pass an order in favour of the complainant & against the opposite parties that In the public interest Icici Bank Ltd & Icici Lombard Ltd should stop such unfair business trade practice for forcing improper insurance plan at the time of sanctioning loan amount & knowing the amount, all insurance plan should come into knowledge of borrower.
Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of complainant & against the opposite parties to meet the ends of justice.
The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing replies. Opposite Party No.1 raised preliminary objection that the Complainant had concealed material facts from this Commission and the Complaint had been filed for wrongful gain. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also stated that the Complaint was not maintainable as the Complainant was not a "Consumer" under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the relation between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 was that of borrower and creditor. Opposite Party No.1 also stated that they never forced or suggested any insurance plan to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is a Banking and Finance Company and does not deal with the Insurance sector. Insurance Policy was taken from Opposite Party No.2. The Bank was involved only to the extent of deducting and transferring the premium to Opposite Party No.2 at the request of the insured. The Complainant and her husband were well educated and Doctors by profession. They had themselves taken insurance of their choice. The amount received from Opposite Party No.2 was duly adjusted against the home loan.
Opposite Party No.2 filed reply stating that it never forced or suggested any Insurance Plan to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.-2 in its Written Statement submitted that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that Opposite Party No.2 had duly honoured their liability by paying the Complainant the full sum Insured as per the terms and conditions of the Policy to which its liability was strictly limited. Opposite Party No.2 was liable to be deleted from the array of Parties as they had duly honoured their liability by paying the Full Sum Insured and the Complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 is not maintainable.
Heard the authorised representative of the Complainant and Learned Counsels for the Opposite Parties and carefully perused the record. It was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties are not road side money lender shop & policy provider. They ought to have suggested the best Policy options available to their Customers. It was their duty to make them aware of the Policy suitable for them, but they were forced to purchase worthless and junk Insurance Policy. It was argued that Opposite Party No.2 failed to fully secure the total loan amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/- and fraudulently issued a Policy which was not suitable to the Complainants. The Opposite Parties should be held liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. It was stated that in the month of August 2010, the Complainant along with her husband approached Opposite Party No. 1 Bank for grant of home loan as well as loan against property. As per the request of the Complainant and her late husband, Opposite Party No.1 sanctioned two loans, one for Rs.83,00,000.00 as Home Loan and another for Rs.39,00,000/- loan against property, thereby disbursing a total amount of Rs.1,22,00,000.00 to the Complainant's account. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred to Opposite Party No. 2 at the request of the Complainant towards Insurance premium securing the Home Loan. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 had not issued the Insurance Policy either to the Complainant or her late husband. Hence, there was no question of unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1. It was averred that taking the Insurance Policy was sole discretion of the Complainant and her late husband and the same could not have been in any way influenced by Opposite Party No.1.
Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submitted that they issued two Insurance Policies i.e., Home Insurance and Secure Mind Insurance Policy to the proposer i.e. Late Husband of the Complainant, Shri Sunit Kumar Ojha. The Policies were issued solely based on the proposal forms duly submitted by the late husband of the Complainant and the liability of Opposite Party No.2 was strictly limited to the coverage provided in the respective Insurance Policies. Opposite Party No.2 duly honoured the claim to the extent of their liability as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, thereby making payment of the insured amount of Rs.21,18,915/- to the Complainant.
Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant and her deceased husband took two loans of Rs.83,00,000/- (Home Loan) and Rs.39,00,000/- (Loan against Property) on 31.08.2010. Both the applicants were working as Doctors at the time of application of Loan. They purchased total Insurance cover of Rs.21,18,915/-, to secure their loan, from the Opposite Party no. 2. The husband of the Complainant, also the main applicant died on 02.02.2012, subsequent to which Opposite Party No.2 sent the full claim to Opposite Party No. 1, which was adjusted against the loan amount of the Complainant.
The main issue in this case is whether Opposite Parties i.e., Bank and Insurance Company were deficient in their service by not suggesting an appropriate Insurance Policy which could have covered the entire loan amount of Rs.1,22,00,000/- and not suggesting the best suitable Policy amounting to unfair trade practice.
The Complainants made the allegation that the Opposite Parties forced them to purchase the Policies in question. There is bald allegation to this effect and the Complainants did not adduce any evidence in this regard. Complainant also failed to show any evidence that they sought information regarding Policies availability in the market, before submitting the proposal or they paid any charges for any consultation service. A person who seeks to obtain a Policy should be aware about the Policy he/she is opting. The insured is expected to go through the policy before taking the Policy and submitting the proposal form. The onus is on the proposer to ascertain the Policy which is best suited to him/her. In the present case it was the Complainant and her deceased Husband who had purchased the Insurance Policy. The Complainant and her late husband were practicing doctors. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that at the time of obtaining the Policies, the Complainant and her deceased husband ought to be well aware of the Policy. It is unjust to proceed against the Opposite Parties when they issued the Insurance Policy and honoured the claim by depositing the full claim amount of Rs.21,18,915/- in the loan account of the Complainant. While purchasing the Policy it was the insured's responsibility to ascertain and understand the Policy best suited to them and approach the Insurance Company. After approaching the Insurance Company for a Policy and having obtained the same and after the Policy was duly honoured, the Complainant cannot plead ignorance and challenge the Opposite Party on not having advised them properly.
In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the instant Consumer Complaint has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to the cost.