Banking and insurance
VVS Ramaikrishna
(Querist) 21 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
will the experts enlighten me?
1. is not the loan application form having no "loan co-applicant" - a valid document?
2. is it valid to mock an insurance proposal in the name of invented 'loan co-applicant' when the loan itself does not have a co-applicant?
3. how legal is it for an insurance company to cancel a 'proposal' for insurance after FIVE MONTHS and under fictitious reasons while not accepting that it does not have the specific insurance covenanted?
4. is it the right procedure for court to ignore the plea that the alleged photocopy of the document is in fact fabricated and forged, instead of taking cognizance of it?
5. an appeal itself means that the aggrieved party has been wronged, is not the appellate court duty bound and morally and in the interest of justice bound to give due consideration of the averments in the appeal?
6. is the appellate court right to throw away the file without even hearing the appellant?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 21 February 2012
1.valid.
2.no.
3.any proposal made can be cancelled by other party as unaccepted.
4.not a clear query at least to me.
5.a court of appeal is obliged to afford due hearing to both parties.
6.no.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 22 February 2012
Mr.Ramakrishna, unless you give full facts any advice will not work we attempt to give the advice on the basis of facts partly presented by you. What happened and what is the problem? Advice is to be sought giving full facts so that it will be useful for you. If you so "yes" "no", it may not really applicable in the circumstances that you are facing.
However, academically I agree with the replies of expert Mr.Prabhakar singh.
VVS Ramaikrishna
(Querist) 22 February 2012
Thank you Mr. Singh and Mr. Jaggarao for your kind reply.
3. as per IRDA and practice of insurance companies, a 'proposal' must be issued with policy within ten days and if it merits rejection, then the time limit is 3 days - but FIVE MONTHS.... think of it -- insurance is for a possible eventuality of risk and should be covered on the day premium is paid.
Does it make sense for a proposal to linger on for FIVE MONTHS before cancelling except in a case of conspiracy?
4. A photocopy is not a valid document in the absence of the original document itself. When fabrication and forgery is alleged and the court also states that fraud is alleged, is it not the duty of the court to examine the original before stating any opinion on that contested document? Instead is it not gross injustice to rely on such contentious unverified photocopy of the alleged document to dismiss the complaint?
5. when appeal is dismissed without hearing the appellant and in NEMO where the order does not give any indication of the aspects of appeal, how does the question of hearing both parties arise unless the other party has been heard (secretly) even before the appeal has been filed?
The bank insisted on an insurance to cover the risk of inability to pay back the loan and got the one time premium collected.
Then, the bank uses one of its two group companies dealing in insurance where the opted company does not have the specific risk cover in its product and covers only death. The Bank is at fault of deficiiency and negligence in service when it did not use its other group company which has this specific risk cover for inability to pay back the loan. Forum & the two commissions have totally ignored this despite a specific order of NCDRC.
Secondly, as a cover up of its mistakes, the bank (with assistance from the car dealer and DSA of the bank) invented a "loan co-applicant" where the loan itself did not have any co-applicant and used its group company to mock a process of insurance proposal for over FIVE MONTHS and eventually cancel the same on fictitious grounds.
Court did not distinguish between risk cover for inability to pay and death as the two are distinctly different from each other.
Court also did not see the difference between an insurance in the name of a non-existent "loan co-applicant" and in a bizzare manner keeps saying that because I refused for a co-applicant to the insurance , the policy is not issued but cancelled. HOW PATHETIC IS THIS ATTITUDE OF THE COURT?
Hope you understand my agony at the apathy (perhaps corrupt practices too) of the so called highest court of consumer act?
VVS Ramaikrishna
(Querist) 22 February 2012
The District Forum, State Commission and the NCDRC IGNORED (1) copy of order in RP no. 601 of 2006 in the matter of Standard chartered bank & others VS Vipin Kumar Gupta where NCDRC held that not booking despite collecting payment is serious deficiency and unfair trade practice u/s 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) of the consumer act; (2) original petition no. 7 of 2007 in the matter of RohitBaja & others VS ICICI Bank & others where it was held that alluring a rate of interest and charging higher rate without notice or concurrence to be unfair trade practice as per section (amended) 36-A of MRTP Act and hence unfair trade practice u/s 2(1)(c)(i) read with section 2(r) of consumer protection Act.
Judge at NCDRC said he saw the two orders filed on record but states that it is not applicable.
a) Loan documents does not have a :Loan co-applicant:
b) Insurance (bogey and red herring) mocked in the name of invented loan co-applicant in a fabricated & forged application form for insurance and not in the borrower's name.
c) Document showing group company of bank having insurance cover for inability to pay the loan ignored by all three courts of consumer act.
d) document showing party-3 insurance comapany - another group company of bank) which in clear bold print says that the 'credit assure' is a single premium group policy and the illustration showing a premium of Rs. 2236 for a risk cover of Rs. 4,00,000/-- and for the tenure of 48 months
is not only ignored but the three courts distorted and declined to accept this stating that this is not acceptable even in the opinion of a layman.
e) plea under section 2(1)(g, (c), (nnn), (r) ignored by all the three consumer courts
f) plea under section 2(c)(i) & (iii) 2(g), 2(nnn), 2(r)(1)(iv) ignored by all the three consumer courts
g) plea under section 13(4)(ii) & (iv) read with 2(1)(r)(x) of CP Act ignored by all the three consumer courts
h) NCDRC declined plea to provide legal aid
IS THIS NOT MISCARRIAGE AND ABUSE OF JUSTICE where innocent victims look upon courts as the only alternative available to them and the courts ignore even the provisions of law and ignore its own orders in similar matters earlier?
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 25 February 2012
APPELLANT COURT SHOULD APPLY THEIR MIND & LISTEN TO BOTH PARTIES
As suggested Banking manages , as deals in crs.
