Case Title: Ramesh Kumar vs HDFC Bank Ltd. and Anr.
Summary
The District Commission in Panipat, Haryana, held HDFC Bank Limited and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. accountable for deficiency in service. The Commission found that the companies failed to compensate a farmer who had incurred losses on his insured crops. The farmer, Mr. Ramesh Kumar, lodged a consumer complaint with the Commission, claiming that the premium amount had been unpaid and withheld.
The Commission observed that the complainant’s assertion that HDFC Bank withdrew the premium amount and deposited it with the Insurance Company was corroborated by bank statements and reports from the Agriculture Department. The District Commission held both parties jointly and severally liable for the compensation, plus interest and an additional Rs 10,000 for harm caused by harassment, mental anguish, and litigation costs. The Commission’s findings highlight the need for better service and compensation for farmers.
About the case
By holding HDFC Bank Limited and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. accountable for deficiency in service, the bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Panipat, Haryana, composed of Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member), determined that the companies failed to compensate a farmer who had incurred losses on his insured crops. In addition to the reimbursement of the insurance premium, the farmer was awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from HDFC Bank and the insurance company.
A KCC/Agriculture loan was deposited into a joint bank account that Mr. Ramesh Kumar (“Complainant”) maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd. at the Madlauda Branch in Panipat. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (“Insurance Company”) insured his crops in accordance with the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (“PMFBY”). Insurance premiums were routinely deducted from the Complainant’s account by HDFC Bank every six months. Alas, inundation caused significant crop damage for Mr. Kumar in 2018. Immediately, he notified the Agriculture Department in Panipat of the situation. The department assessed a 50% reduction in his paddy crops, which equated to a financial loss of Rs. 1,12,680.
Notwithstanding numerous requests and endeavors, the premium amount remained unpaid by both HDFC Bank and the Insurance Company. In addition, HDFC Bank withheld Rs. 9878 from the insurance company’s account as premium. The Complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Panipat, Haryana, (“District Commission”), out of frustration.
As per the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (“PMFBY”) regulations, HDFC Bank maintained that the premium amount had been deducted from the Complainant’s account and deposited with the Insurance Company. They contended that in the event that the Insurance Company failed to disburse compensation to the Complainant, the bank could be held liable for the delay. HDFC Bank maintained that it was not responsible for calculating the complainant’s payments and had no role in providing compensation.
The Insurance Company refuted the allegations made in the complaint and maintained that the premium amount had not been deposited with them by HDFC Bank, which consequently led to the postponement of the Complainant’s compensation.
They contended that their service was impeccable and that the complaint contained additional unfounded allegations. In the Commission’s Observations: The District Commission observed that the complainant’s assertion that HDFC Bank withdrew the premium amount and deposited it with the Insurance Company was corroborated by documents such as bank statements and reports from the Agriculture Department. Both HDFC Bank and the Insurance Company, in the opinion of the District Commission, manifested a glaring disregard for service. The complainant was not granted the compensation to which he was entitled in accordance with the PMFBY guidelines. Consequently, the District Commission issued an order requiring both HDFC Bank and the Insurance Company to remunerate the complainant with Rs. 1,12,680 in compensation, plus interest and an additional Rs 10,000 for harm caused by harassment, mental anguish, and litigation costs. For the aforementioned payments, the District Commission held both parties jointly and severally liable.
