Delhi

North East

CC/239/2016

SUNIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA(THROUGH ITS. BRANCH MANGER) - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

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. 239/16

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sunil S/o Shri Raj Singh R/o H.No. 308, Rajput MohallaGhonda, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.         3.	Central Bank of India Through its Branch Manager, Ghonda Branch, Delhi-110053   Central Bank of India (Corporate Office) ChanderMukhi, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021   Central Bank of India P.B. No. 7007, Link House Press Area, 3 BahadurshahJafar Road, New Delhi-110002	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                    DATE OF ORDER:

07.09.16 15.03.23 07.07.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Ms.Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the nominee in the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (policy) no. 900100016 issued in the name of Late Sarwesh Kumari. It is stated that the insured was the mother of Complainant and she expired on 17.08.15. The Complainant further stated that the Opposite Party bank deducted the premium through the account timely and also deducted after filing the claim also. On 17.10.16 the Complainant submitted his claim in the Opposite Party bank. The Complainant stated that after that, he visited Opposite Party bank various times but Opposite Party did not release the claim and did not give any response. First, the complainant was informed that the Opposite Party has not processed the claim due to non-stamping on claim and requested the Complainant to submitthe claim again and Complainant submitted the claim again on 22.02.16. The Opposite Party bank has repudiated the claim on the basis/ issue of date of birth which sounds vague.On 27.06.16 the Complainant sent notice to Opposite Party bank through speed post but Opposite Party has not given any reply. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to pass the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-  along with prescribed interest due to delay on Opposite Party bank and Rs. 1,00,000/- for damages along with legal expenses.

 

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Partiesthat the complaint filed by the Complainant is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary party as the Complainant has not made the LIC of India who is the insurance company in the present case and also is necessary party in the present complaint as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is the case of Opposite Party that Complainant intentionally and deliberately concealed relevant and material facts by not disclosing that his deceased mother was not eligible for the enrolment under PMJJBY as her date of birth is 01.01.1956 which is evident from her Aadhar Card and the Complainant has mischievously filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to harass the Opposite Party and damage its reputation. Further, the Opposite Party stated that the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party No. 1 after receiving the claim of the Complainant pursued the matter with Central Office and the Central Office(Opposite Party No. 2) after going through the claim of the Complainant has returned the claim vide its mail dated 05.04.16 with the remarks that from the Aadhar Card of Mrs. Sarvesh Kumari, it is observed that her date of birth is 01.01.1956 as such she was not eligible for enrolment under PMJJBY and this fact was duly conveyed by the Opposite Party No. 1 to Complainant at the time of his visit in the Branch. Despite of this fact the Complainant has filed the present complaint with sole motives to harass the Opposite Party.
3. The Central Office (Opposite Party No. 2) further confirmed regarding returning of claim of Complainant vide its another mail dated 22.06.16 with the remarks that we had returned the claim papers for non-submission of clarifications/documents. Opposite Party has prayed to dismiss the present complaint with exemplary costs in favour of the Opposite Party.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

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

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of ShriRajinder Singh, Senior Manager of Opposite Partywherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
8. The case of the Complainant is that Complainant’s mother Late SarweshKumari was insured under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (policy) no. 900100016 through Opposite Party bank and  the Complainant was nominee. The Opposite Party bank deducted the premium from her account timely. As the Complainant’s mother expired on 17.08.15 and the Complainant being nominee lodged the claim for maturity amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim on the basis/ issue of date of birth. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Party bank insured her mother and after insurance proper acknowledgement slip was issued and deducted the amount directly from the account and now the Opposite Party bank is not paying the insurance amount to the nominee /Complainant. It is contended by the Complainant that when Opposite Party bank had already checked KYC of the Complainant’s mother and insured her and deducted EMI directly from her account, then at the time of payment the Opposite Party cannot raise issue of date of birth and deny the claim.
9. On the other hand, the Opposite Party had alleged that the Complainant has not disclosed that his deceased mother was not eligible for the enrolment under PMJJBY as her date of birth is 01.01.1956 which is evident from her Aadhar Card and the Complainant has mischievously filed the present complaint with ulterior motive to harass the Opposite Party. It is contended that after receiving the claim of the Complainant, the Central Office (Opposite Party No. 2) after going through the claim of the Complainant has returned the claim vide its mail dated 05.04.16 with the remarks that from the Aadhar Card of Mrs. Sarvesh Kumari, it is observed that her date of birth is 01.01.1956 as such she was not eligible for enrolment under PMJJBY and this fact was duly conveyed by the Opposite Party No. 1 to Complainant.
10.  After careful perusal of material on record, it is undisputed that the policy was issued in the name of Mrs. Sarvesh Kumari (now deceased) under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana and the Complainant was nominee. The contention of the Complainant is that since Opposite Party bank had already checked KYC of the Complainant’s mother and insured her and deducted EMI directly from her account, then, Opposite Party had committed deficiency in services raising the issue of date of birth at the time of payment and deny the claim.
11.  It isprovedfrom the evidence placed on record that the deceased mother of the Complainant was not eligible for the enrolment under PMJJBY as her date of birth is 01.01.1956 which is evident from the Aadhar card which has been relied upon by both the parties. Considering the fact that under PMJJBY, account holders in the age group of 18-50 were eligible, Complainant as a nominee cannot be allowed the insurance amount under the policywhich was not valid as his mother was not eligible.
12. However, it is evident from the documents viz copy of acknowledgement Receipt and copy of bank statement filed by the Complainant that the Opposite Party bank issued the acknowledgement and auto debited the amount from the account of late Mrs. Sarvesh Kumari as premium under the policy which was not valid. Considering this fact, we are of the considered view that Opposite Parties have been deficient in providing services to the Complainant, therefore liable towards Complainant jointly and severally.
13.  Thus the present complaint is allowed partly and Opposite Parties are directed to refund the entire amount deducted as premium till date from the account of deceased insured along with 6 % p.a. interest from the date of filing the complaint till its recovery. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with 6 % p.a. interest from the date of this order till its recovery.
14. Order announced on 07.07.23.

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