Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 157.
Instituted on : 1.4.2019.
Decided on : 01.01.2020.
- Veena, aged 46 years, wife of Late Shri Sanjay Kumar.
- Saloni, aged 22 years daughter of Late Shri Sanjay Kumar.
- Himani aged 24 years daughter of Late Shri Sanjay Kumar.
- Suraj, aged 20 years, son of Late Shri Sanjay Kumar, all residents of House No.477/26 Jawahar Nagar Rohtak.
………..Complainants.
Vs.
- Bank of Baroda Civil Road Rohtak, through its Branch Manager.
- India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. 301, B Wing, The Qube, Infinity Park, Dindoshi-Film City Road, Malad(East) Mumbai-400 097 through its Managing Director/Incharge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that as per government scheme, the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 to 4 had purchased a policy bearing no. G00005552 under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna plan from the opposite party no.2 and the premium of insurance was deducted from the bank account of the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 to 4. The said policy was valid upto 31.5.2017. It is also averred that Shri Sanjay Kumar had died on 25.9.2016. After the death of her husband, complainant no.1 approached the opposite party no.1 and requested to pay the amount of claim under the said policy. The complainant no.1 completed all the required formalities and the claim no.00025667 was sent to the opposite party no.2 but the opposite party no.2 had issued a letter dated 1.2.2019, vide which it is informed that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated on the ground of age misrepresentation. The alleged ground taken by the opposite party is absolutely wrong and illegal and in fact, there is no mis-representation of age. The insurance policy was issued to an account holder and at the time of opening account, all the information is supplied to the bank regarding age and other particulars. It is further averred that the opposite party has not mentioned that what was mis-representation of age and what was actual age. In fact, there is no mis-representation. If the age was wrongly mentioned, the same could be due to clerical mistake. The complainants requested the opposite parties many time to pay the amount of claim under the said policy but the opposite party refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the amount of claim in full and final under said policy alongwith interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of death of the husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 to 4 and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and deficiency in service and also to pay litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 received back served and notice sent to opposite party no.2 through registered post dated 21.05.2019 but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. As such, opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide orders dated 15.5.2019 and 11.7.2019 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte respectively.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 2.12.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. At the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of scheme of Government i.e. Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima, the said scheme is available to people in the age group of 18 to 50 years having a bank account who give their consent to join/enable auto-debit. Risk coverage under this scheme is Rs.2 Lakh, in case of death of the insured, due to any reason. The premium of Rs.300/- p.a. was to be auto-debited in one installment from the subscriber’s bank account as per the option given by him. In the present case, Sh. Sanjay Kumar(since deceased) was having account with the opposite party No.1 and as per copy of pass book Ex.C1, an amount of Rs.330/- was deducted from his account on 10.06.2016 under PMJJBY(Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima). As per copy of death certificate Ex.C2, Sh. Sanjay Kumar had died on 25.09.2016 and after his death, complainant filed the claim with the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.2 had sent a letter Ex.C3 and had repudiated the claim of Sanjay Kumar having policy No.G0000552 on the ground of mispresentation of age.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that opposite party No.2 has not placed on record any document to prove that how there was mis-presentation of age and the same is also not explained in the letter. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear before this Forum despite service and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainants against the opposite party no.2 stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainants as per policy.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the claim amount of Rs.200000/-(Rupees two lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.04.2019 till its realization to the complainants in equal share within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.01.2020.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
