Nagpur consumer commission orders SBI to pay insurance money to widow despite 6-year delay in claim
Despite submitting all necessary documents, the bank kept the claim pending and did not take a decision on it.
After exhausting all the available remedies, she approached the consumer commission to get the insurance claim.
She also sought compensation of Rs 50,000 for mental and physical agony, and Rs 20,000 for complaint costs.
The bank, in its written response, contended that the complaint was “false and baseless.”
It does not send independent information or documents regarding insurance protection to any debit cardholders, the bank said.
The financial institution also pointed out that the deceased held a ‘MasterCard Classic’ type of ATM/debit card, where no insurance protection was applicable.
It also highlighted failure to submit any insurance claim within the mandatory 90-day period.
The commission, after perusal of case details, remarked that following the sudden death of her husband, “it is natural for the complainant to suffer a mental shock and take some time to recover from that situation”.
It rejected the bank’s contention that her card was not insurance-protected, saying they had not submitted any solid document that made a clear mention of it.
On the contrary, the documents on record mention that insurance protection is applicable to other types of debit cards.
However, no clear exclusion clause has been mentioned regarding ‘MasterCard Classic’, it noted.
If the bank claims that insurance protection is not applicable to a specific card, then it is necessary to submit the clear conditions and their documentation, the commission underlined.
In the present case, it is seen that insurance protection has been provided to other cardholders without charging any fees, the commission noted.
“Therefore, giving different treatment to different customers under similar circumstances is unfair and constitutes a deficiency in service,” it held.
It is not clear from the documents submitted that the bank had provided any information regarding the debit card to the deceased or his heirs, the commission asserted.
“Had the opposite parties provided such information, the deceased or his heirs would have taken the necessary care,” it said.
Therefore, rejecting the claim on the ground that it was not filed within 90 days cannot be accepted, the commission held, concluding that the bank’s action was “unjust and a deficiency in service.”
(With inputs from PTI)
