Delhi

North East

CC/387/2022

Sh. Ravinder Kumar Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 387/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Ravinder Kumar Soni S/o Lt. Sh. Jagdish Chand Soni R/o C 22, Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                     2.	M/s Central Bank of India Branch Office:- B 20, Ganga Vihar, Delhi-110094   Regional Office:- 398, Ist Floor, Chandani Chawk, Delhi-110006   Corporate Office:- Chandermukhi, Nariman Point,  Mumbai-400021   M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India Coporate Address:- 64, Janpath Road, Atul Grov Road, Janpath, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		07.10.22 12.02.24 05.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The wife of Complainant is purchaser of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Beema Yojana (PMJJBY) Vide policy no. LICCBIN8168578288 of yearly premium of Rs. 330/- and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana (PMSBY) Vide policy no. NIACBIN8168578288 of yearly premium of Rs. 12/- per year total sum insured comes around Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1 in favour of his wife Sushma Soni. On 01.05.18 wife of Complainant expired and Complainant informed Opposite Party No.1 and Complainant filed claim of policy being legal nominee. On 10.10.21 Complainant submitted all documents in branch office of Opposite Party No.1 but neither Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 gave any reply or credit the amount in his bank after submitting all documents. The Complainant had also visited office of Opposite Party No.1 several times but no satisfactory reply was received by Complainant. The Complainant had visited to office of Opposite Parties for releasing his claim but Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of Complainant. The Complainant had also sent legal notices to Opposite Parties dated 31.08.22 but no action was taken by Opposite Parties. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the insurance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and he also prayed for the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of financial loss and mental harassment.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, both the Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 24.02.23.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that his wife is a member of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Beema Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yojana and she regularly paid premium of Rs. 330/- and Rs. 12/- respectively for the said policies and total sum insured was Rs. 4,00,000/- from the Opposite Party No.1 in favour of his wife. It is further stated by the Complainant that his wife expired on 01.05.18 and Complainant informed Opposite Party No.1 and Complainant filed claim of policies being legal nominee. On 10.10.21 Complainant submitted all required documents in the branch office of Opposite Party No.1 but neither Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.2 gave any reply or credit the amount in his bank after submitting all required documents.
5. As per bank statement of wife of Complainant submitted by Complainant along with complaint shows that Rs. 330/- and Rs. 12/- deducted from his wife’s account in the year 2017 on 24.05.17 and 26.05.17 and in the year of 2018 same amount was deducted on 23.05.18 and 24.05.18 and same amount was deducted in the year of 2019, 2020 and 2021 also. According to the Complainant, his wife died on 01.05.18. It is clear from the above facts he did not inform the bank about death of his wife after 01.05.18 i.e. date of death of his wife and premium of said policies were deducted even after the death of his wife for 4 years. The Complainant also failed to give any explanation regarding documents for claim was submitted to the Opposite Party after more than 3 years of the death of the wife of the Complainant.  The Complainant also did not file any document regarding the policies against which he is claiming insurance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He also did not file any document regarding he was the nominee of the said policies. In our considered opinion, Complainant did not approach this Commission with clean hand. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.  
6. Order announced on 05.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President