Skip to main content

Brief Notes of Argument in Consumer Insurance Case

 

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint no.                       of 2020

 

                                                          In the matter of :

Ananya Halder @ Ananya Haldar,

_______Applicant

-      Versus –

 

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, and Another

_______Respondents / Opposite Parties.

                                                                  

BRIEF NOTES OF ARGUMENT

On behalf of the Applicant Smt. Ananya Halder @ Ananya Haldar

 

Submits in the following :

 

1.   Pursuant to grant of housing loan vide sanction letter under Reference Number 923769, dated 24-03-2018 by the Respondent no.1, herein to and in favour of the husband of the Applicant, Subal Haldar, since deceased, and the deceased husband of the Applicant purchased immovable property for residential purpose and thus became the owner thereof and residing therein together with his family. The Home Loan Account No. HHLKSL00426944, has been assigned by the respondent. The respondent no.1, herein proposed for Insurance and therefore a sum of Rs. 43,135/- ( Rupees Forty Three Thousand and One hundred thirty five ) only, and whereas the respondent no.1, proposed for the respondent no.2, for having insurance to the deceased husband of the applicant.

 

2.   On 30-04-2018, the respondent no.2, being Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited, issued a Policy Number MPI/12553732/62/03/006159, dated 30-04-2018, ( Universal Protection Policy ) which clearly shows Advisor ID : 62001194, Advisor Name : Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, Insured : Subal Haldar, Period of Insurance commencing from 30-03-2018 to midnight on 29-03-2020, in respect of Home Loan Account Number HHLKSL00426944, Sum Insured as of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Lakhs ) only.

 

3.   The husband of the Applicant died on 11-04-2019, at GVMCH Hospital, Vellore, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu – 632011, while he was under serious medical treatment. The information of the death of the said Subal Haldar, duly acknowledged by the Applicant to the Respondents. The said Subal Haldar, since deceased, the husband of the Applicant paid EMI till the month of April’ 2019.

 

4.   The Applicant astonished subsequently when she received a notice on or about 09/09/2020 at the door of her residence wherein it was purportedly contended that one alleged notice dated 02-01-2020 by the Respondent purportedly under sub-Section 2 of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act; 2002, calling upon the Applicant to discharge in full a total sum of Rs.13,42,397/- as on 02-01-2020 was allegedly served upon the Applicant. The applicant immediately rushed to the Respondent Bank enquiring about the matter but the Bank Officials showed their inability to satisfy the Applicant.

 

5.   Inspite of such unenforceable and bad notice allegedly served upon the Applicant and further inspite of the said loan account of the Applicant being not under the category of Non Performing Asset, the Respondent in collusion and connivances with its officers and knowing fully well that the Applicant is a widow of very low means intends to translate the said notice and with such ulterior and bad intention and in furtherance of the said purported notice dated 02-01-2020 served upon the Applicant a notice dated 09-09-2020 purportedly under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for Sale of the said property owned by the Applicant under the disguise of the enforcement of course of law which is not at all tenable under the law.

 

6.   It is pertinent to states that under the connivance of the Respondent no.1, and the Respondent no.2, both of them jointly and or severally made liable to suffer the applicant after his demise as on 11-04-2019, since he was only earning member of the family, and more particularly much more money has been exhausted during his medical treatment as to save his life from crucial sufferings though he departed for heavenly abode and leave his wife being the applicant herein and only son Shri Snehasish Halder, and consequently the pandemic circumstances of COVID – 19 spread started in the month of March’ 2020 and which still continuing so far, and therefore the applicant is suffering at all square of her life to stand up in any manner, whatsoever, and whereas the respondent no.2, the insurance company did not heed to the claim place by the applicant on the pathetic death of her husband Subal Haldar, and did not acknowledge any thing in such regard to the applicant, therefore the applicant was in much dark about her claim from the respondent no.2, and at the other hand the respondent no.1, being the financial institution did not help in any manner to the applicant herein rather continuously asking for EMI from the applicant and did not heed to any of communication in this regard by the applicant.

 

7.   The applicant therefore in such a compelling circumstances, approached Consumer Affairs Department, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Khadya Bhawan Complex, Shed no. 14, 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700087, and ventilate her grievances against the Respondent no.1, herein, and whereas the said Consumer Affairs Department given notice to the respondent no.1, herein and in a tripartite meeting it has been observed by the Consumer Affairs Department as “ The day is fixed for the tripartite meeting. Both parties appeared for the same. The complainant appeared in person and the opposite party is represented by the Legal Manager, Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited. The facts regarding the complaint have been discussed in details with both the parties concerned with. During the meeting the representative of the opposite party verbally stated that the Bharati AXA General Insurance Company Limited has already repudiated the insurance claim because the ailment of death is not covered as one of the critical illnesses  mentioned in the policy. Documentary evidences in support of their claim has also been submitted. On perusal of the documents submitted by the op company and taking the discussion during the tripartite meeting in consideration it appears that the issue may not be resolved though the pre-litigation mediatory process. Hence, the file related to the complaint is closed at this end. The complainant may file a statutory consumer complaint with the appropriate district consumer disputes redressal commission for redressal of her grievance through adjudication”

 

8.   The applicant astonished to get a copy of repudiation letter dated 25-11-2019, of the respondent no.2, herein being Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited from the respondent no.1, herein being Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, at the tripartite meeting held on 30-09-2020, before the Consumer Affairs Department, as the said purported repudiation letter has not been served on the applicant by the respondents and therefore the applicant was not in knowledge of such repudiation letter dated 25-11-2019. The Contents of the said repudiation letter dated 25-11-2019, expressed as “on scrutiny of the documents it is observed that the insured Mr. Subal Halder was admitted due to milliary tuberculosis and the death is due to the same ailment, however the ailment is not covered as one of the critical illness mentioned in the policy and hence the claim stands repudiated”.

 

9.   The applicant beg to states that the medical report of Subal Haldar, given by the Christian Medical College Vellore – 4, Department of Medicine – II, visit dated 09-04-2019, observed as “ he was apparently well till January 2019, when he started having low grade fever ( with evening rise, no drenoning night sweats, daily fever, touching baseline ) along with cough ( with mucoid expectoration, no hemoptysis and no chest pain, no dyspnea) as well as progressively worsening painless abdominal distension with jaundice and high colored urine. No abdominal pain and no nematernesis, malena, altered behaviour or altered sleep wake cycles” Diagnosis for (1) Tuberculosis – pulmonary ( Miliary ) and (2) Thalaseemia Intermedia, has been preferred on Subal Halder.

 

10.                The applicant placed her claim to the respondent no. 2, as well as to the respondent no.1, in prescribed format as advised by the respondent no.2, herein and after submission of her claim to the respondent no.2, she was waiting to get her claim though no communication and more particularly the letter of repudiation of her claim has never been served on her by the respondent no.2, herein, and whereas the applicant for the first time  came into knowledge on 30-09-2020, while the respondent no.1, placed such repudiation letter dated 25-11-2019, in tripartite meeting of the consumer affairs department.

 

11.                The repudiation letter dated 25-11-2019, issued by the respondent no.2, herein is bad in law and not tenable in any square of facts and circumstances, and whereas the applicant being widow of Late Subal Halder well entitle to get her claim of sum insured as of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Lakhs ) only, in terms of the facts as well as in terms of the Law.

 

12.                The applicant is a victim at the behest of the respondents who under their connivance denied the legal claim of your applicant and harassed her in several aspects off and on, thereof.

 

13.                The respondents are adopting their unfair trade practices, and deficiency in services, as meant for in the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019. 

 

  1. The applicant seeks to get her rightful claim being sum insured as of Rs. 15,00,000/- ( Rupees Fifteen Lakhs ) only, from the respondents, in terms of the facts as well as in terms of the Law, thereof.

 

  1. The respondents shall also pay the compensation due to the applicant petitioner for the harassment, troubles, physical inconvenience and mental agony arising directly out of the breach of the contract and breach of duty on the part of the respondents. The applicant assesses such loss and damages at Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rupees Three lakhs ) only.

 

  1. The applicant relief on the following documents / Papers :

a)    Letter dated 30-09-2020 of Consumer Affairs Department;

b)   Repudiation Letter dated 25-11-2019, of Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Limited;

c)    Insurance Claim form;

d)   Insurance Policy Number MPI/12553732/62/03/006159, dated 30-04-2018;

e)    Medical Report of Subal Haldar ( deceased ) ;

f)     Death Certificate of Subal Haldar, issued by Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore;

g)    Possession Notice dated 09-09-2020;

h)   Loan Sanction Letter dated 24-03-2018;

i)     Communication with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, through Letters, emails, etc.;

j)     Death Certificate of Subal Haldar, issued by KMC;

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS TO DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER

  OBJECTIONS OF 2ND TO 4TH RESPONDENTS TO DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY PETITIONER:- 1. The interim application is not maintainable since the affidavit accompanied the application does not speaks truth and its vague and not specific in disclosing accurate reasons for the absence of petitioner/plaintiff in the days wherein court has scheduled to plaintiff evidence. 2. The affidavit consist of mere allegations un-supported by documents, hence liable to be dismissed. The written statement and objections filed by these respondents to the main petition be read as part and parcel of this objections to delay condonation application. 3. The matter of condonation of delay, it is an established position that every day's delay has to be explained and a person who seeks the exercise of the discretion to condone the delay in his favour cannot run away by making a mere general statement or mere allegation unsupported by document or mere passing of his laches upon his advocate. 4...

"As Is" and "As Available"

  " As Is" and "As Available " " As available " applies to goods and services, including those provided online. ... With apps and websites, " As Available " indicates contractual standards only when the product or service is available. “As Is” alerts a buyer in a sales contract that they accept the purchased item, be it real estate, animals, automobiles or appliances, in its present condition. It also assumes the buyer has a right to inspect the property first so they can assess any defects and make an informed decision. “As available” applies to goods and services, including those provided online. At its most simple definition, it refers to products in stock or real estate that remain on the market. Once purchased, there are no guarantees because the product is no longer available. It also refers to store or office hours with a bricks-and-mortar business. With apps and websites, “As Available” indicates contractual standards only when the produc...

Quashing a False 498a FIR

  Quashing a False 498a FIR Quashing of FIR is a tough matter ! Courts generally are reluctant to interfere at the stage of investigation and only very strong grounds + persuasive arguments can make a bench sit up and taking a 482 matter seriously. FIR’s can be quashed if they an abuse of process of law/prima facie don’t disclose any offence or are inherently improbable - If you are thinking about quashing of FIR u/s 498a/406. These are the grounds/list of judgments of quashing that would help bolster your plea : GROUNDS FOR QUASHING IN A 498a/406/34 IPC MATTER • BECAUSE  Section 482 of the Cr.PC  categorically saves the inherent power of High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case it is pertinent in the ends of justice and to prevent an abuse of the process of law that the impugned FIR be quashed. • BECAUSE ...