DR. SHIPRA TRIPATHI Vs. ICICI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Complaint is filed by the Complainant under Section 21(a) (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) 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 and 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-

(3.) 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.