Haryana

Karnal

CC/156/2021

Mahindro Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Sagwal

10 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.156 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.15.03.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:10.07.2024

 

Mahindro Devi wife of late Shri Jagdish resident of village Gohida, P.O. Amupur, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce (now merged in Punjab National Bank), village Rasina branch, District Kaithal.

 

2. Canara HSBC-OBC Life Insurance Company, SCO 93, 1^st floor, sector-7, Urban Estate, main market (HUDA market), Karnal.

 

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri Manoj Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Brijesh Sharma, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 02.09.2022.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that Shri Jagdish husband of the complainant was having bank account no.15962191004224 with the OP no.1 and he was insured under Pardhan Mantri Jiwan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) Scheme since 2015 and he was making installment/premium of Rs.330/- regularly. Shri Jagdish had appointed the complainant as his nominee in the said bank account. Jagdish was expired on 27.02.2020. After the death of her husband, complainant lodged a claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents with the OPs for settlement of the claim but OPs never gave the benefit of the said insurance scheme. The complainant being widow and nomine of said Jagdish is entitled to the benefit under the abovesaid scheme and as per the school admission register record, the date of birth of husband of complainant was 17.04.1967. The complainant served a legal notice dated 23.12.2020 upon the OPs but OPs neither adhere the genuine request of complainant nor any reply of said notice has been sent to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant sent a reminder dated 08.01.2021 and requested the OPs to release the benefit to the complainant under the abovesaid scheme but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after the death of deceased husband of complainant, the claim was lodged to the insurance company and during the process of the claim, one query with regard to the age proof of the deceased was demanded by the insurance company with a view to process the claim but inspite of the cooperating to the officials of the insurance company, the complainant filed the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has arrayed the LIC as one of the OP to this complaint, whereas LIC has nothing to do with the present complaint as at the instant time, the Oriental Bank of Commerce has tied up with Canara HSBC-OBC Life Insurance Company. The claim in question was also being processed by the same company. It is further pleaded that after the death of Shri Jagdish, the documents were supplied to the OP were submitted to the insurance company, as the claim in respect of the death of the deceased Shri Jagdish could not be sanctioned because of want of authentic age proof of the deceased. The said proof has not been provided by the complainant to the OP. The settlement of the claim was delayed only because of the negligency of the complainant, in which the OP has no role to play. Moreso, the claim of the complainant is being entertained, so the part of deducting of the amount from the account of the deceased and submitted the same to the insurance company has been properly done by the OP. Complainant has never submitted the age proof of the deceased to the OP only because of that the settlement of the claim has not been done by the insurance company. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 3.            OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has not made party to the appropriate insurer of PMJBY scheme through which the deceased life assured was covered by OP no.1. Hence, the name of OP no.2 should be deleted from the array of the OPs. It is further pleaded that Shri Jagdish son of Shri Dhari was having PMJJBY Insurance since 2015 with OP no.2, vide bank account no.15962191004224 with Oriental Bank of Commerce and Smt. Mahendro his wife was the nominee. However, as no bank statement is received by the officials of the OP no.2, the regularity of premium payment cannot be admitted or declined. The insurance under PMJJBY scheme are renewed annually and after 01.06.2017, no renewal premium has been received by OP from OP no.1, hence the PMJJBY scheme is now not covered with LIC of India. So, the claim is not to be processed or payable by the OP no.2. Neither claim has been filed with OP no.2 nor any documents or death certificate have been provided to its office. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          Thereafter, learned counsel for the complainant moved an application for deleting the existing OP no.2 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation from the array of title and impleading Canara HSBC-OBC Life Insurance Company. The said application has been allowed, vide order dated 07.07.2022 of the Commission and notice to Canara HSBC-OBC Life Insurance Company i.e. OP no.2 was issued but none has appeared on behalf of OP no.2 despite service, hence was proceeded against expare, vide order dated 02.09.2022.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2020 and its reminder dated 08.01.2021 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of death certificate of Jagdish Ex.C4, copy of bank statement Ex.C5, copy of date of birth certificate Ex.C6, copy of guidelines of PMJJBY Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Davinder Bansal, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 05.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that Jagdish (since deceased) was having bank account with the OP no.1 and he was insured under Pardhan Mantri Jiwan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) Scheme since 2015. Complainant is the nominee in the said policy. Jagdish was expired on 27.02.2020. After the death of her husband, complainant being nominee lodged a claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents for settlement of the claim but till today OPs neither paid the claim amount nor settle the claim of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant lodged the claim with the OP and during the process of the claim the age proof of the deceased was demanded by the OP but till today complainant has never submitted the age proof of the deceased to the OP, so the settlement of the claim has not been done by the insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.            Admittedly, Jagdish (since deceased) had obtained the PMJJBY from OP no.2 through his banker i.e. OP no.1. It is also admitted that life assured had died during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

12.           The claim of the complainant has not been settled by the OPs on the ground that complainant has never submitted the age proof of the deceased with the OPs. The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but she has miserably failed to prove her case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that complainant submitted the age proof with the OP. Neither the complainant has placed on file any receipt of handing over age proof of her husband to the OP nor has placed on file any postal receipt from which it can be ascertained that complainant has sent the age proof of her husband to the OP by post. Hence, in view of the above, at this stage, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable.

13.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed of, with the liberty to the complainant to submit the age proof alongwith other required documents with the OPs and on receipt of the same, OPs are hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:10.07.2024

                                                               President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                          Member