Firm told to clear outstanding dues of housing loan

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, December 8

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed an insurance company to clear the outstanding housing loan dues of the deceased, who had got it covered from the insurance company in eventuality of death. The forum has also directed the PNB Metlife Insurance Company to pay Rs 7,500 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation expenses to the deceased’s widow.

Earlier, Deepa Arora, a resident of Fatehgarh Churian Road, had filed a complaint against Punjab National Bank and PNB Metlife India Insurance Company stating that his husband had taken housing term loan of Rs 8 lakh. She alleged that representative of the bank allured her husband to buy loan and Life Suraksha Policy to cover death in case of eventuality from the PNB Metlife Insurance.

She added that during the policy period, her husband Deepak Arora (42) suffered health problems and was rushed to a hospital. She added that during the stay at hospital, he suffered cardiac arrest and passed away.

When the complainant claimed the amount covered under the policy from the opposite parties and to clear the outstanding housing loan amount by submitting death certificate, the opposite parties did not settle the outstanding loan amount. She alleged that after repeated requests and personal visits, finally her claim was denied.

The PNB Metlife Insurance in its reply stated that insurance policy was issued on the basis of information provided by the deceased life assured in the proposal form. It stated that even as the hospital had mentioned the deceased as suffering from chronic kidney problem for the last six years, the same was not revealed in the proposal form. It added that the claim of the complainant had rightly been repudiated.

The forum stated that no affidavit of the doctor who issued the death summary has been placed on record to prove the said death summary. In the absence of which no evidentiary value can be made on the report submitted by the doctor, it added. The forum further observed that if assured was suffering from pre-existing disease why insurer had not checked it at the time when proposal form was accepted by its staff. It added that there was no bar on the opposite party to get the thorough medical checkup at the time of issuance of the policy.