SUNITA BANSAL Vs. AXIS BANK LIMITED & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Sh. Tej Kumar Bansal and his wife complainant Sunita Bansal jointly took a home loan from OP No.1 Axis Bank Limited. In order to secure that loan, a Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form was submitted by Late Sh. Tej Kumar Bansal to OP No.1 Axis Bank Limited, for taking an insurance cover on his life from OP No.2 Max Life Insurance Company Limited. In the Health Declaration Form, loan application number was filled up by the bank as 2828034 though the correct number of the application form was 2896412. As stated in the affidavit filed by Sh. Abhay Kumar, Chief Manager, Group Operations of OP No.2 Max Life Insurance Company Limited, they received premium amount of Rs.2,13,056/- on 12.05.2015 for application ID 2896412. Thus, correct application ID was provided to OP No.2 at the time premium was remitted to it on 12.05.2015. On 13.05.2015, an e-mail with an annexure was sent by OP No.1 to OP No.2 giving details of several such proposals including the proposal submitted by Late Sh. Tej Kumar Bansal. In the aforesaid annexure, the application ID was correctly recorded as 2896412. Loan account number of Late Sh. Tej Kumar Bansal was also correctly disclosed in the said document as PHR004301380504 alongwith his address and mobile number. Thus, by 13.05.2015, OP No.2 had the requisite particulars though, it did not have the Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form with it. The Health Declaration Form was received by OP No.2 from OP No.1 on 14.05.2015. As noted earlier, the application number/application ID was wrongly given as 2828034 in the said Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by both the OPs. OP No.1 Axis Bank Limited has not disputed that the application ID was incorrectly filled in the Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form though its case is that all the particulars had already been provided to OP No.2 on 13.05.2015 itself and thereafter, as soon as the said company sought a clarification on 27.05.2015, the said clarification was also provided on the same day.

(3.) It is not in dispute that not only the name, address and mobile number of the proposer were available to OP No.1 by 13.05.2015, even the loan account number was available in the document sent to it by OP No.1. A perusal of the Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form would show that the loan account number given on the aforesaid document is the same which was the loan account number given in the documents made available to OP No.1 on 13.05.2015. Therefore, if OP No.2 so wanted, it could easily have linked the Health Declaration Form received on 14.05.2015 with the premium received on 12.05.2015 by matching the loan account number, name and address of the proposer. Unfortunately, that was not done. If OP No.2 had to harbour some doubt on account of the application ID number given in the Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form, it ought to have contacted OP No.1 immediately on receipt of the said Proposal-cum-Health Declaration Form instead of waiting for at least 13 days after the said form had been received. It would be appropriate to take Regulation 4(6) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations, 2002 which reads as under: