ANITA SHARMA Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
C Viswanath,J. -
(1.) The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 16.09.2014 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in CC No.14/2006.
(2.) Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had taken a housing loan from OP No. 2, with her husband as the co-borrower. Complainant took an Insurance Policy from OP No. 1 for personal accident benefit of Rs. 34,00,000/- and the Policy was valid upto 12.06.2028. The Policy also insured the aforesaid loan in case of death of the insured. The Complainant's husband, who was also the co-borrower died due to Naxalite attack on 25.05.2013. The matter was reported to the Police Station. As per the Complainant, in case of death of the Complainant or her husband, the insured amount was to be adjusted against the loan obtained by the Complainant from Op No. 2 Bank. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the ground that it fell under the Exclusion Clause of the Policy. Since the claim of the Complainant was repudiated, a Complaint was filed in the State Commission with the following prayer:-
"A. That the OP No. 1 may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- alongwith interest to the complainant.
B. That the OP No. 2 may be directed to discharge the complainant from paying the home loan and for which the OP No. 2 will be liable,.
C. That on the claim amount of Rs.34,00,000/- the interest @ 18% may be awarded from date of filing of the complaint till the payment.
D. That the complainant from 11-06-2013 and after that on various dates has paid the installment of home loan of Rs.3,41,275/- from the Ops. The Ops may be direct to pay the said amount jointly or severally.
E. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit may also be granted against OPs"
(3.) The Complaint was contested by the OPs. OP No. 1/Insurance Company stated that the Complainant's husband died due to naxalite attack and by virtue of the Insurance Policy's Exclusion Clause, the Complainant was not entitled to get the insured amount from OP No. 1 and therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated. OP No. 2/Bank stated that since the claim of the Complainant was repudiated by OP No. 1, the Complainant is liable to deposit the loan amount with the OP No. 2. The dispute was between the Complainant and the Insurance Company, and was not related to OP No. 2 and therefore, Complaint against OP No. 2 was liable to be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.