BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                          Complaint No.: 179 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.08.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision: 04.02.2019.

Basanti widow of Shri Naresh Kumar, resident of village Gothra, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus.

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Shop No. 02, Anaj Mandi, Loharu, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.

…...Opposite Party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri AK Saini & Shri SK Sharma, Advocates for the OP.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that her husband has opened a bank account No.4751119000262 on 15.9.2014 with the OP bank.  It is alleged that in the month of May, 2015, the official of the OP asked the husband of the complainant to purchase life insurance policy under the scheme PMJJBY for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, for which an amount of Rs. 330/- for life insurance scheme bearing No. (16-17) 4751250516 1320198 and Rs.12/- were deducted on 26.5.2015 from the bank account of husband of the complainant for accidental claim insurance bearing No.(16-17) 47512505163 121773 i.e. due to accidental death the amount of Rs. 2 lacs will be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.  It is further alleged that at the time of above policies the OP took aadhaar Card & Voter Card of the husband of complainant as age proof and after due enquiry the OP issued the above both policies in favour of the husband of the complainant and the complainant is nominee.  It is further alleged that the premium of second installments of the above said policies was also deducted by the OP from the account of the husband of complainant i.e. Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- respectively on 26.5.2016 and 27.5.2016.  It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant has expired on 24.6.2016 and the complainant is his nominee.  It is further alleged that the complainant being the nominee/legal heir of the policy holder approached the OP many times regarding the payment of the claim amount in relation to the policy in question to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, but the officials of the OP bank kept lingering on the matter and finally refused to pay the same.  It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 27.7.2016 was also served upon the OP through Shri Sanjeev Tanwar & Santosh Sheoran, Advocates Bhiwani, but the OP did not reply the same.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency & negligence in service on the part of OP and as such, she has to file the present complaint. 

2.                 On notice, opposite party appeared and have filed contested written statement alleging therein that the husband of the complainant had obtained the Life Insurance policy under Pardhanmantri Jivan Jyoti Bima Yojna and this policy is applicable only to the 50 years age, but the husband of the complainant by concealing his age and submitted all the bogus documents with regard to his date of birth alongwith declaration wherein he had mentioned his date of birth as 29.9.1973, whereas after investigation it came in the knowledge of the OP that the date of birth of the husband of the complainant is 1953 as per Aadhar Card as well as voter ID Card.  It is further alleged that as per terms & conditions of the Bank, the person who happens to be more than 50 years is not applicable to get this facility.  It is further alleged that the complainant case to the OP and she was told the actual facts with regard to concealment of facts of date of birth and at that time she was fully satisfied and she herself put off the matter.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C6 in evidence and closed the evidence. 

4.                Ld. counsel for the OP has placed on record documents annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence and he further placed on the file copy of the account opening form and copy of the voter card of the husband of the complainant. 

5.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.

                   The first question is whether the husband of the complainant was entitled to get issue the policy under PMJJBY.  From the perusal of the terms & conditions of the policy in question Annexure R1 to R3, it is clearly proved that all Saving Bank holders aged between 18 & 50 years are eligible to take Life cover under PMJJBY.  Moreover, from the perusal of death certificate of the husband of the complainant i.e. R4, it is clear that at the time of death his age was 63 years.  From the perusal of the account opening form, it transpires that the date of birth of the husband of the complainant is written as 29.9.1973, whereas in his aadhar card his birth year is written as 1953.  So, it is clear that the husband of the complainant has written wrong date of birth in his account opening form.  From the perusal of Voter Card of the husband of the complainant placed on record by the OP, it transpires that his age as on 1.1.1994 was written as 35 years, which means that he has already attained the age of 50 years at the time of opening of account.  From the above facts & circumstances, it is clearly established on record that the husband of the complainant was not entitled to get issue the insurance policy under scheme PMJJBY.  Now, the second question arises, whether there is any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.  From the perusal of the copy of bank pass book placed on the file, it is clearly proved that the OP Bank has deducted the amount of Rs.330/- + Rs.12/- twice, which is wrong & illegal.  Thus, the OP bank is deficient of not perusing the documents while opening the bank account of the husband of the complainant and further they have deducted the amount from the saving bank account of the husband of the on account of premium of the insurance policy under PMJJBY scheme, which is wrong and illegal.

7.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant on the point of grant of relief of insurance policy under PMJJBY is dismissed, whereas the remaining complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and the OP is directed to: -

i.        To refund Rs.684/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

ii.       To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment, hardship & due to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OP shall be liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i & ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 04.02.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 04.02.2019.       

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.