Complaints filed on: 19-08-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 16-02-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

CC.No.67/2021

Vimala W/o Chikkanna

Aged about 50 years,

R/o Madavara Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur Dist-572 129.

……….Complainant

 (By Sri. K.C.Nagaraju, Advocate)

V/s

1.       The Branch Manager,

          Canara Bank, Koratagere Branch

          Koratagere,

2.       The Manager, Bajaj Allianz

          Golden Heights, 4^th Floor, No.1/2

          59^th C Cross, 4^th Main Road,

          Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010.

……….Opposite Party

(OP No.1 Sri. JP Law Associates, Advocate)

(OP No.2- Sri. Naveen Kumar, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under PMSBY policy with interest @ 12% PA together with punitive cost. 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

His son by name Rudresh M.C. had an account bearing No.4733108000172 with the OP 1’s Bank and the said Bank has deducted Rs.12/- on 22.05.2020 through auto-debit from his son’s account towards premium for PMSBY Insurance.  Unfortunately, his son died on 10.05.2021 leaving beyond his Mother.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the Bank to close the account of his son, when she came to know that Rs.12/- was deducted on 22.05.2020 for the purpose of PMSBY insurance.  Hence, the complainant enquired about the deduction of Rs.12/- for PMSBY insurance, the employees of the Bank did not gave proper response.  Therefore, she got issued legal notice on 10.06.2021 through her counsel, for that the OP replied on 21.06.2021 and thereafter the complainant realize one mistake in that notice and corrigendum notice was issued to OP on 26.06.2021, but the OP did not comply with the said notice.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint without any alternative.     

3.       The OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel after receipt of notice from this Commission and filed their separate version. 

The OP No.1 in its version admitted the fact of holding SB account in their bank by the complainant’s son and deduction of Rs.12/- for PMSBY insurance policy and sent the same Bajaj Allianz House, but contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis joinder of necessary parties and also the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The OP No.1 further contended that they have no knowledge about the death of complainant’s son Rudresh M.C. due to Covid-19 and it is false to say that responsibility of settling the insurance amount is on the OP No.1 as because they have sent the premium amount to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company and hence they are liable to settle the claim.  Further, it is false to say they denied furnishing details about PMSBY to the complainant.  The OP No.1 further contended that they remitted the insurance premium on behalf of the complainant to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and the remittance of insurance premium is only a free service rendered without having any obligation to pay any compensation to the complainant and they have taken initiative to remit the same to safe guard the interest of the complainant/customer and the said service of OP is only an intermediary between the complainant and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company.    The OP No.1 further contended that Rudresh M.C. the complainant’s son died on 10.05.2021 due to Covid-19, but the policy covered for death due to accident and permanent disability, like total and irrecoverable loss of both eyes or loss of use of both hands or feet or loss of sight of one Eye and loss use of hand or foot and not for Covid-19.  Moreover, they have not liable to pay the insurance amount and it is the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company is liable to settle the claim.  Hence, on these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          The OP No.2 in his version contended that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as the complaint requires voluminous evidence, oral as well as documentary to be lead to proper adjudication of the matter.  It is well settled law that when the voluminous evidence and complicated questions are involved, the better course is to direct the complainant to approach the Civil Court to get the grievance resolved.   There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Insurance Company.  It is further contended that there is no intimation about the claim and there is no cause of action occurred to the insured to file consumer complaint and the complaint is pre-mature one.  It is further contended that the insurance policy for Rs.2,00,000/- obtained by the deceased by paying premium of Rs.12/- is correct and the policy covers the risk as per the policy terms and conditions.  The policy holder M.C.Rudresh died on 10.05.2021 leaving behind the complainant as his nominee is not within the knowledge of this OP and the complainant has put to strict proof of the same by producing the documentary evidence.  They have no knowledge about the allegation regarding non furnishing details of policy and deduction of premium by the OP No.1.  The amount under the policy is payable only as per the terms and conditions of the policy. 

          The OP No.2 further contended that they are ready to register the claim of the complainant if the complainant has given a claim form/written letter to the OP company with required documents as per the policy terms and conditions as the complainant till today has not made any claim under the policy.   When there was no claim, the OP is unable to process the same.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service in giving service to their customers by the OP.  On the ground of non-intimation of claim, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  On these among other grounds it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.      

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence along with list of 11 documents, but not marked the same.  Smt.Kusuma S.N., Senior Manager, has filed her affidavit on behalf of OP No.1 and marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R3.  Sri. Vaishnavi Inamdar, Legal Manager of OP No.2 filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and marked the documents at Ex.R1.

5.       We have heard the arguments of OPs. The OP No.1 also filed written arguments.  In spite of sufficient opportunities, the complainant did not address his arguments, hence the arguments of complainant is taken as NIL.

6.       On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by both parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)                     Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1:

Point No.2: As per the final order

:REASONS:

8.       On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents, it is seen that the complainant’s son Rudresh M.C. had an account bearing No.4733108000172 with the OP No.1 Bank and the OP No.1/Bank had deducted Rs.12/- on 22/05/2020 through auto-debit from the complainant’s son account towards premium for PMSBY Insurance.  Later, complainant’s son died on 10.05.2021 leaving beyond his Mother.  Thereafter, the complainant being a nominee to the account of her son approached and enquired about the deduction of Rs.12/- for PMSBY insurance.  But the OP No.1/Bank employee did not give proper response.  Therefore, she got issued legal notice on 10.06.2021 and for that OP No.1/Bank replied on 21.06.2021, but did not comply.

9.       The OP No.1/Bank admitted the fact of holding S.B. Account in their Bank and deduction of Rs.12/- for PMSBY insurance policy.  The OP No.1/Bank contended that they remitted the insurance premium on behalf of the complainant to Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company   and the remittance of insurance premium is only a free service rendered without having any obligation to pay any compensation to the complainant and they have taken initiative to remit the same to safe guard the interest of the complainant/customer and the said service of OP is only an intermediary between the complainant and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company.    The OP No.1 further contended that Rudresh M.C. the complainant’s son died on 10.05.2021 due to Covid-19, but the policy covered for death due to accident and permanent disability, like total and irrecoverable loss of both eyes or loss of use of both hands or feet or loss of sight of one Eye and loss use of hand or foot and not for Covid-19. 

10.   The OP No.2 contended that the insurance policy of Rs.2,00,000/- obtained by the deceased by paying premium of Rs.12/- is correct and policy covers the risk as per the policy terms and conditions. 

11.     In the course of arguments, the counsel for OP No.2 submitted that Rudresh M.C. the son of complainant died due to COVID-19 on 10.05.2021.  But the Policy covered for death due to accident and permanent disability, not for COVID-19.  Counsel for OP No.2 relied on Ex.R2 i.e. copy of policy schedule.  As per Ex.R2, the terms and conditions of the policy reads as under:

1. Accidental death cover upto Rs.2.00 Lakh
2. Total and irrecoverable loss of both eyes or loss of use of both hands or feet or loss of sight of the one eye and loss of use of hand or foot cover upto Rs.2 Lakh or
3. Total and irrecoverable loss of sight of one eye or loss of use of one hand or foot cover upto Rs. 1 Lakh.

12.     But, the complainant’s son died due to COVID-19 as per document i.e Medical certificate issued by the Taluk Government General Hospital, Koratagere, wherein it is stated that cause of death is “Respiratory Arrest, COVID”.  Hence, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claim is not admissible/covered under the policy.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any death benefit under the policy.  The complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service against the OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we pass the following:-  

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 16^th day of February, 2023).

MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT