DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Presents:-
1 Sri A.K.Purohit, President
2 Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 21th day of May’ 2019
C.C. No. 21 of 2018
Chintamani Thanapati, S/o- Late Umakanta Thenapati
Aged about 45 years, resident of Gadvitar, ward No- 1, Po/Ps- Patnagarh
District- Bolangir
-Versue-
1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Patnagarh,
Po.Ps.= Patnagarh,District- Bolangir
2. Branch Manager, LIC, District Head Office, At/Po/District- Bolangir
Adv. For the Complainant : - Sri V.Purohit and associates
Adv. For O.P. No. 1 :- Sri T.K.Thakur and associates
Adv. For O.P. No.2 :- None
Date of filing of the Case :- 02.05.2018
Date of Order :- 21.05.2019
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. This case has been remanded by the Hon’ble State Commission for fresh disposal in F.A.No.467 of 2018. As per the direction of the Hon’ble Commission parties have appeared and complied with the orders passed in the appeal.
2. The complainant being the nominee of late Achyutanand Thanapati under the PMJJBY and PMSBY scheme has preferred this case alleging deficiency in Banking and Insurance service. The case of the complainant is that, late Achyutanand Thanapati having his account with the Bank of O.P.No.1 vide S/B Account No. 7415000100030821 had applied in the prescribed Form for enrolment under Pradhan Mantri Surakshya Bima Jojana and Pradhan Mantri Jivan Joyti Bima Yojana on dated 19.5.2016. Both the forms have been entered by the O.P.1 vide entries No. 741500000281 and No. 7415000000140. Achyutanand Thanapati died on 31.5.16 and after his death the complainant being the nominee has lodge his claim before the O.P.1 and found that, the premium amount of Rs. 330/- for the PMJJBY scheme has not been debited from the account of latr Achyutanand Thanapati and in its place an amount of Rs.12/- has been debited. The complainant alleges that non debited of the premium amount for the PMJJBY scheme is a negligent act of the bank for which the complainant debarred from the benefit of the scheme and sustain financial loss and hence he has preferred this case claiming compensation.
3. Both the O.ps have filed their written version separately. In his written version the O.P.1 denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that, Late Achyutanand Thanapati had applied for both the PMSBY and PMJJBY scheme and after verification the application for PMJJBY scheme was rejected due to non-submission of self certificate of good health which is mandatory as per circular. The application for the PMSBY scheme was accepted and accordingly the premium amount was debited from his savings account and again the said amount was renewed on dated 25.5.16. Hence the O.P.1 bank has not committed any mistake and there is no deficiency in service on his part.
4. According to O.P.2, his branch has no role to play under the PMSBY and PMJJBY scheme and the same is under the control and business of P&GS unit of LIC. The Branch of O.P. has not received any premium amount from Achyutanand Thanapatiand hence there is no needs of consideration of any claim amount of the complainant. The O.P 2 claims dismissal of the case against him.
5. Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. Relying on the copies of application form, Death certificate and entries in the pass book of Late Achyutanand Thanapati. The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that Late Achyutanand Thanapati was present in the bank on dated 17.5.16 and opened his S/B Account and his signature was verified by the banking authority in his application form which are the evidence of good health and hence the stand taken by the O.P.1 is incorrect and the complainant is entitle to the relief as claimed in the complaint petition. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P.1 relying on the circular issued by the Bank authority submitted that, according to the said circular for enrollment in the PMJJBY scheme a self certificate of good health is required which was not produced by Achyutanand Thanapati and hence his application for the scheme has not been considered and he is not entitled to the benefit of the scheme.
6. Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) and Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) are Govt. based insurance scheme wherein any account holder of the participating Bank within the prescribed age group may join in the scheme on payment of the single annual premium which will be debited from his account. It is the duty of the Bank to receive the application form for the scheme in a prescribed format and debit the premium amount from the account of the applicant and in turn it is the duty of the life Insurance Company to settled the claim. The PMSBY scheme covers accidental death and the PMJJBY scheme covers any kind of death. In the present case during course of argument the learned advocate for the complainant fairly submitted that, since the death of the applicant is not an accidental death the complainant is not entitled to the claim under PMSBY scheme. Hence the only point for consideration is whether the complainant is debarred from the benefit of PMJJBY scheme due to the negligence of the O.P.1 Bank.
7. It is an admitted fact that, Late Achyutanand Thanapati have a savings bank account with the O.P.1 Bank vide S/B Account No. 7415000100030821. It is also an admitted fact that, the account holder had applied for both the PMSBY and PMJJBY scheme, wherein he has mentioned the name of the complainant as his nominee. It is also evident from the death certificate that Achyutananda Thananpati died on dated 31.5.16. With these admitted facts it is to be seen whether there is any provisions for submission of self certificate for good health along with the PMJJBY application.
8. On perusal of the copy of the application form it is seen that the form is in a prescribed format. In the said form there is requirement of supply of information on 5 points i.e. name of the account holder, account number, email I.D., name of the nominee and date of birth. The said Form does not disclose any thing for submission of good health certificate. Perused the circular filed by the O.P.1. The circular is issued by the Financial Inclusion Division of Punjab National Bank on dated 30.9.15 which seems to be an executive instructions and is not a Rule of Law. The evidence available on record shows that, the account holder duly applied in the prescribed form for enrollment under the PMJJBY scheme and O.P. No.1 negligently did not debited the premium an amount of Rs 330/-from the account of the applicant. There is no evidence available on record to show that The O.P.1 intimated the applicant about the requirement of good health certificate nor has intimated the applicant about the rejection of his application due to non-supply of health certificate.
9. It is seen from the savings pass book entries of late Achutanand Thanapati that, he had open his account on 17.5.16 which shows that the account holder is present in the Bank in good health. It is also seen from the application under the PMSBY scheme that the bank authority had verified and attested the signature of the applicant on dated 19.5.16, which shows that the applicant was in good health on the said date. On the same date the applicant had also submitted his application for PMJJBY scheme which was entered by the O.P.1 vide entries No. 7415000000140. It is also seen from the account statement that the applicant had sufficient amount for deduction of premium amount. Hence there is no reasons for the O.P.1 to refuse the applicant for joining the scheme. It is also seen from the account statement that the O.P. 1 has debited the premium amount for the PMSBY scheme after the death of the account holder, which is a negligent act of the O.P.1.
10. Under the aforesaid discussion and material available on record the stand taken by the O.P.1 is not supported with sufficient evidence and hence the same is not accepted. On the other hand the complainant has proved its case with sufficient evidence to show the negligence act of the O.P.1 for which he was debarred from the benefit of a scheme.
11. The O.P.2 neither received the premium amount nor has received the claim of the complainant and hence he is not liable under the scheme.
12. Due to the negligent act of the O.P.No.1 the complainant is debarred from the benefit of the scheme and sustain financial loss of Rs. 2 lakhs and hence he is entitled to compensation. Since the scheme is a Govt. based beneficial scheme and the complainant has debarred from the benefit it is too difficult to calculate the same in money value. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case the compensation amount as prayed by the complainant will be proper and meets the ends of justice. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.300000/- (three lakhs) to the complainant towards compensation and cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall bear an interest@ 6% P.A. till payment.
Accordingly the case of the complainant is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 21st day of May 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
