NCDRC upholds District & State Commission's order; Directs HDFC to settle accident insurance claim
NCDRC upholds District & State Commission's order; Directs HDFC to settle accident insurance claim
Peruses the Supreme Court ruling under the Consumer Protection Act
Upholding the orders passed by the District & State Commission, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revised petition filed by HDFC Bank Ltd.
The Commissions had directed HDFC to indemnify the complainant as per the insurance coverage offered under the Gold Debit Card (GDC) issued by the bank.
In 2009, Jharkhand resident, Rani Singh had filed a complaint with the Hazaribagh district consumer disputes redressal commission.
Early this month, the bench of C Viswanath (presiding member) and Subhash Chandra (member), passed an order stating, "From the records, it is apparent that the petitioner (HDFC Bank) 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."
It added, "The concurrent findings on facts of these two foras are based on evidence 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, and re-appreciate the evidence, which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse."
The order added, "The foras have pronounced orders, which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. It is seen that the orders are based on the evidence on record. In view of the settled proposition of law that where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted. Such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction, therefore, this petition is liable to fail."
The district commission had directed HDFC to indemnify the complainant as per the insurance coverage assured, along with compensation of Rs.3,000, the litigation cost of Rs.2,000, and interest at the rate of 9 percent.
In October 2015, while upholding the order passed by the district forum, the state commission had dismissed the petition filed by the lender.
In 2009, Rani Singh's husband Raj Kumar Singh was issued the GDC by HDFC. The card had an accident insurance cover for Rs.5 lakh, included as an additional benefit.
However, HDFC stated that on 5 January 2009, it changed the terms and conditions with respect to the personal accident cover for the cardholder by incorporating the condition that the cover would be available only if there was one transaction from the debit card within a period of six months, prior to the death of the cardholder.
According to HDFC, this change was communicated to the Singhs on 5 January 2009 via the bank statement and also through a letter. The information was also displayed in HDFC Bank's branches.
In the meantime, Raj Kumar Singh died in an accident. On 24 April 2009, his wife submitted an accidental insurance claim under the GDC scheme. However, HDFC rejected it stating that Singh, the cardholder, had not completed a transaction on his GCD in the six months prior to his demise.
The wife then approached the Hazaribagh district commission. While allowing the complaint, the district forum ordered the bank to pay the insurance amount along with interest at 9 percent per annum to Singh under the GDC - from the date of filing the complaint, till the date of payment.
However, HDFC challenged the order in the Jharkhand state consumer commission, which dismissed the plea.
The state commission noted, "The change was not prospective in nature and against the terms and conditions of the bank. If such a term would have been made prospective, the policyholders would be obliged to make at least one purchase transaction using the debit card within a period of the next six months to avail of the insurance cover. But in the present case, the policyholder neither had any knowledge of such a condition nor had any opportunity to comply with it. The said changes were effective from 1 March 2009, whereas, the policyholder died on 29 March 2009."
It added, "The complainant had proved the payment of the debit card annual fee for the year 2009. The comprehensive insurance cover was included in the said GDC as an additional facility. Therefore, the bank wrongly said that Rs.500 annually was never charged to maintain the insurance policy. Admittedly, it was charged for an additional facility of GDC."
While perusing the orders of the Supreme Court on revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the NCDRC found no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the orders passed by the two commissions.
It stated, "The present revision petition is, therefore, found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed."
