Mohammed Ayubcomplaina vs City Bank Care Centre

THE complainant has filed this complaint seeking for a direction to the opposite parties (for short, ''O.Ps.'') to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 towards the Insurance Claim covered under the Citi Bank International Credit Card along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of death of the deceased Mohammed Usman.

THE case of the complainant is as follows: One of the representatives of O.P. -2 approached the complainant and his deceased brother Mr. Mohammed Usman at their office at Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, and explained the attractive features of the Credit Card facility and also informed the Insurance Coverage in the event of Personal Accident in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 payable upon the death of the Card holder. The further case of the complainant is that having been attracted by the information furnished by O.P. - 2, the complainant and his deceased brother agreed to become the Card holders and, accordingly, they subscribed their signatures to the Forms to become the Card holders. Thereafter, the complainant and the deceased Mohammed Usman were issued with Citi Bank International Cards bearing Nos. 4385 8790 3933 3103. Mr. Mohammed Usman, who is the brother of the complainant, died in a road accident on 15/16.3.2002. In this regard, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 149/2002. On the death of Mr. Mohammed Usman, the complainant enquired with the O.Ps. regarding the claim of Rs. 25,00,000. Pursuant to the said claim, O.P. -3 agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 stating that the assured sum under the Insurance Policy is only Rs. 2,00,000. In so far as the remaining amount is concerned, O.Ps. 1 and 2 informed the complainant that the deceased was only an ''Add -on Card holder'' and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. This has made the complainant to issue a Legal Notice to the O.Ps. calling upon them to settle the claim.

O .Ps. 1 and 2 had sent a reply notice stating that the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation for the death of his brother Mohammed Usman.

O .P. 3 in its reply has admitted the liability to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 and, accordingly, it has agreed to settle the claim. Since O.Ps. 1 and 2 declined to settle the claim as per the promise made in the Brochure, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission.

O .Ps. 1 and 2 have filed their version. According to them, the complainant was issued with a Credit Card and he being a primary card holder was entitled to get issued another Credit Card to any eligible person of his choice and, accordingly, at the request of the complainant, an ''Add -on Card'' was issued to the complainants brother. The deceased brother of the complainant being an Add -on Card holder is not entitled to claim any compensation under the Citi Bank Suraksha - Twin Benefit Insurance Plan.

O .P. - 3 has filed its version stating that as per the Group Personal Accident Policy issued to O.P. 1, the deceased insured is entitled for payment to the extent of only Rs. 2,00,000 and, therefore, it is ready and willing to settle the claim to the said extent. Both parties filed their affidavits by way of evidence and produced documents in support of their case. On the pleadings of the rival parties, the poin that arises for consideration is: Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint?

THE case of the complainant is that he and his brother are holders of Citi Bank International Cards issued by O.Ps. 1 and 2. In support of this contention, the complainant has produced a xerox copy of the Card issued to the insured deceased Mohammed Usman, which is marked as document No. 1. From this card it is seen that the deceased Mohammed Usman is the holder of Citi Bank International Card. In this Card, there is nothing to indicate that the deceased Mohammed Usman is an ''Add -on Card hoder''.

THE case of O.Ps. 1 and 2 is that the complainant is a primary card holder and the deceased Mohammed Usman is only an Add -on Card holder. In support of this contention, O.Ps. 1 and 2 have produced the application form filed by thecomplainant. The said form consists of three pages and it is marked as ExhibitR -2. The said form is signed by the complainant only and there is no signature of deceased Mohammed Usman on the said form. The specific case of the complainant is that he and his brother subscribed their signatures to the forms to become the card holders. This averment made in the complaint by the complainant has not been denied by O.Ps. 1 and 2 in their version. If the deceased Mohammed Usman had not made any application to get a Credit Card from O.Ps. 1 and 2 they would have denied the same in their version. As stated earlier, the Credit Card issued to the deceased Mohammed Usman does not disclose that he is an Add -on Card holder. In the absence of denial by O.Ps. 1 and 2 regarding filing of the application by deceased Mohammed Usman, we hold that Mohammed Usman is not an Add - on card holder and he is a primiary holder of the Citi Bank Intenrational Credit card. After the death of Mohammed Usman, the complainant enquired with the O.Ps. regarding the payment of Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for the death of his brother pursuant to the advertisement issued through Brochure. In response, O.Ps. 1 and 2 have furnished to the complainant the Brochure issued regarding the benefit available under the Scheme called Citi Bank Suraksha. The said Brochure is produced and marked as Document No. 11 along with the compalaint. From the said document it is seen that the benefit of the Personal Accident Insurance is Rs. 25,00,000. Under the said scheme, O.Ps. 1 and 2 are required to purchase a policy covering the risk of the Card holder from TATA AIG and Royal Sundaram. Under the policy issued by TATA AIG and Royal Sundaram the risk of the primary card holder is covered by the Insurance Policy. In addition to the said policy, O.Ps. 1 and 2 are required to purchase one more policy from O.P. 3. Under the policy obtained from O.P. 3, both principal card holder and Add -on card holder are entitled for compensation and the assured sum under the said policy is Rs. 2,00,000. Further, as per the conditions of the agreement between the parties, the premiums payable by the Card holders will be paid by O.Ps. 1 and 2 and debit the same to the account of the card holders. As stated earlier, since the deceased Mohammed Usman was a card holder it was the duty of O.Ps. 1 and 2 to purchase Group Insurance Policies from TATA AIG and Royal Sundaram and also from O.P. 3 in respect of the card holders. So far as O.P. 3 is concerned, it has produced the policy under which the assured sum payable on the death of the insured is Rs. 2,00,000. O.P. 3 has come forward to pay the said amount, provided the complainant produces the succession certificate to show that he has succeeded to the estate of the deceased Mohammed Usman.

THE learned Counsel appearing for O.Ps. 1 and 2 submitted that the deceased Mohammed Usman being an Add -on card holder is not entitled for any compensation under the Citi Bank Suraksha Scheme, since the policy produced by O.Ps. 1 and 2 from TATA AIG and Royal Sundaram covers the risk only in respect of the primary card holder. The scheme does not define who is ''Primary card holder'' and who is ''Add -on card holder''. O.Ps. 1 and 2 have produced Annexure ''W -1'' which is the policy issued by O.P. 3 and Annexure ''W -2'' which is the policy issued by TATA AIG Life Insurance Company along with the Written Arguments. In Annexure ''W -2'', the word ''Card Members'' is defined. According to this definition, ''Card Members shall mean the persons so defined in the Policy Schedule attached hereto''. The word ''Eligible Members shall mean the Card Members who have met the eligibility requirements set forth in Part II Section''A of the Policy and are entitled to participate in the Insurance Plan under this Policy''. In order to know who are all the ''Eligible Members'' as set -forth in Part -II of Section ''A, we called upon the learned Counsel appearing for O.Ps. 1 and 2 to produce Part -II Section ''A of the Policy, as we wanted to see the entire policy in order to ascertain whether the Add -on card holders are also entitled to claim compensation in the event of death. But the learned Advocate for O.Ps. 1 and 2 did not produce the same, even though the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Counsel to produce the same. No doubt we have already held that Mohammed Usman is a Citi Bank International Card holder by looking at the card. But in order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we wanted to look into the entire policy. But we are deprived of looking into the policy, since the same has not been produced before us. Hence, we are of the view that irrespective of the fact whether the name of the deceased was included in the Group Insurance Policy in the Policy purchased by O.Ps. 1 and 2 from TATA AIG and Royal Sundaram or not, O.Ps. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 23,00,000 excluding the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 which O.P. 3 has come forward to pay.

IN view of this finding, the next question that arises for consideration is: Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation as a legal heir of the deceased Mohammed Usman as per the offer made by O.Ps. 1 and 2 in their Brochure? It is nextly contended that the complainant under the ''Mohammedan Law'' is not the only person who is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased Mohammed Usman and, therefore, if at all if any order is passed directing the O.Ps. to pay the amount the same may be subject to the production of the Succession Certificate. There is substance in this contention. Hence, any order to be passed directing payment of compensation will be subject to production of Succession Certificate.

IN the result, we pass the following Order : (1) The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed. (2) O.Ps. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 23,00,000 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization, subject to the production of Succession Certificate. (3) O.P. 3 is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization, subject to the production of Succession Certificate. (4) O.Ps. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000 to the complainant towards the cost of these proceedings. Ordered accordingly.