Page 53 - The Insurance Times September 2025
P. 53

Insurance Caselaws











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

         48   September 2025  The Insurance Times
   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58