DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 826/2017
D.No. ______________________ Dated: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SUDHIR KUMAR SAGAR S/o SH. H.S. SAGAR,
R/o G-2/29, SECTOR-16, ROHINI,
DELHI-110089.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
CANARA BANK,
(THROUGH ITS SENIOR MANAGER),
SECTOR-16, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 07.10.2017
Date of decision:06.04.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that thecomplainant’s wife Smt. Adesh Kumari was having a saving bank account no.2702101003866 with OP and the complainant is the nominee of his wife in her bank account and ‘Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana’ and the complainant’s wife applied for
CC No. 826/2017 Page 1 of 6
‘Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti BimaYojna’ called PMJJBY on 22.06.2015. Thereafter, OP issued an acknowledgement slip cum certificate of insurance to her pursuance to her PMJJBY application and as per the scheme and bank’s norms, premium of PMJJBY has to be auto debited from her savings account and the complainant’s wife had given her consent and authorized for auto debit from her savings account to join the PMJJBY and the bank was duty bound to debit the premium without any delay but bank failed to perform its duty without delay and the amount of premium was debited from the account holder on 05.11.2015. The complainant further alleged that to the utter misfortune of the complainant, his wife untimely expired on 15.09.2015 leaving the complainant and her three children and OP debited the amount of premium after demise of the complainant’s wife and the complainant presented his claim of PMJJBY to OP on 12.10.2015 which was rejected citing the reasons that i) the amount is debited to the deceased S.B. account on 05.11.2015 while the date of death was 15.09.2015 and ii) the deceased has not produced any proof of age at the time of admission in the scheme and OP never required any proof of age in respect of the said scheme but in order to put out of sight the inaction and illegitimate act, tried to put the onus on the shoulder of the complainant by citing that the deceased has not produced any proof of age at the time of admission in the scheme. The complainant
CC No. 826/2017 Page 2 of 6
further alleged that the complainant raised his grievance to OP vide letter dated 16.04.2016 and OP did not bother to respond to the grievance raised by the complainant and the complainant, after having no response from OP, exercised Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought information under the said Act vide application dated 23.05.2016 and OP did not reveal correct and complete information even under the RTI Act. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.04.2017 again requested to OP to honour the legitimate claim of the complainant but OP did not bother to respond to the said legal notice and the complainant further alleged that the act of OP amounts to deficiency in service.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for direction to OP to pay the claim of PMJJBY of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. Notice was issued to OP through speed post for appearance on 13.12.2017 and the notice was delivered on OP on 23.10.2017 as per track report but none for OP appeared on 13.12.2017 and as such OP has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.12.2017.
CC No. 826/2017 Page 3 of 6
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit inevidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has placed on record copy of 1st page of bank passbook of his wife as well as statement of account for the period from 07.03.2015 to 16.02.2016 to show that the wife of the complainant was having sufficient balance in her bank account in June-2015 and amount of Rs.330/- being the premium for PMJJBY was debited in her account on 05.11.2015, copy of acknowledgment slip cum certificate of insurance issued by OP, copy of letter dated 12.10.2015 written by the complainant to OP, copy of claim form ‘Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana, copy of Discharge Receipt for Payment Under PMJJBY Scheme, copy of death certificate of Smt. Adesh Kumari, copy of letter dated 07.04.2016 sent by OP to the complainant, copy of application dated 16.04.2016 sent by the complainant to OP, copy of RTI application dated 23.05.2016 sent by the complainant to OP alongwith copy of postal order & postal receipt, copy of reply dated 18.07.2016 sent by OP to the complainant and copy of legal notice dated 10.04.2017 sent by the complainant through his Counsel to OP.
5. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The complainant has neither placed on record copy of insurance
CC No. 826/2017 Page 4 of 6
policy number 900100006 nor has placed on record the terms & conditions of the insurance policy under PMJJBY. The complainant has also not placed on record the age proof of his wife.
6. The terms & conditions of insurance policy under PMJJBY are available on internet which shows that the insurance under the said Yojna is made available to any person between the age group of 18 to 50 years. The copy of 1st page of the passbook of deceased Smt. Adesh Kumari, the wife of the complainant shows her date of birth as 01.01.1950. It clearly shows that when Smt. Adesh Kumari applied for insurance scheme under PMJJBY her age was more than 65 years. It clearly shows that Smt. Adesh Kumari was not entitled to benefit of insurance policy under PMJJBY. Furthermore, the copy of acknowledgement slip cum Certificate of Insurance filed by the complainant shows that the same was issued subject to correctness of information provided regarding eligibility and receipt of consideration amount.
7. Referring to the case of the complainant, the complainant has failed to show as to what was age of his wife which was mentioned in the application form. Moreover, the consideration amount was not paid by wife of the complainant towards premium for the said policy. Thus, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent evidence and we are further of opinion that there
CC No. 826/2017 Page 5 of 6
is no merits in the case of the complainant. The case is accordingly dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 6th day of April, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 826/2017 Page 6 of 6
