IN THE MATTER OF

Naushad S/o Inshad age about 30 years R/o Mohallah Musalman Khair Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. Gramin Bank of Aryavarth, Chhota Churahavill Khair Branch Aligarh
2. Star union Dai- Ichi Life Insurance Limited IInd Floor, Vishnusaroop IT Park Rgutlella Arcade Sector 30A opp. Vasi Railway Station Vasi Navi Mumbai

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for following reliefs:-

1. Op be directed to pay the benefits amounting Rs.200000 on the death of the father of the complainant under the insurance scheme with interest @12% per annum.
2. Op be directed to pay compensation Rs.50000 for harassment and Rs.10000 for litigation expenses.

2. Complainant has stated that his father Late Inshad had opened a bank account number 124910100011352 on 19.11.2010 in Op bank branch . Complainant’s father was registered with the master policy no. JJ 000003 with his saving bank account and certificate of insurance no. AGB JJ-702231006030321 was issue. The premium of policy was Rs.330 per annum  and the frequency of premium was yearly on first June every year. On 6.12.2021 certificate of insurance was issued wherein complainant was appointed as nominee. Complainant’s father had paid the premium and passed away on 3.11.2021 as per death certificate. On the death of Late Inshad complainant is entitled for the benefits of Rs.200000 under the insurance scheme.        

Op bank declined the claim alleging that the date of birth of the insured mentioned in the certificate of insurance as 1.1.1980 instead of 1.1.1973 mentioned in the account maintained by the bank. It was bank itself that had brought the complainant’s father under the insurance scheme on basis of Aadhar Card submitted to the bank. It was the act of negligence of the bank to incorporate the wrong date of birth in the papers. The certificate of insurance was issued to a bonafide person namely Inshad who had opened the account in the bank and the wrong entry of date of birth in the certificate of insurance on account of negligent act of bank employee cannot be treated a ground for denying the claim. The insured Late Inshad was the same person who had opened the account and joined the scheme of insurance and now the nominee cannot be denied the claim.

3. Op no.1 bank stated in WS that the certificate of insurance was issued as per record of the bank wherein the age of the insured is entered as 1.1.1980. The policy was issued under scheme of central government and claim was rejected by the insurance company. Complainant’s father has been wrongly alleged to have died on 3.11.2021 as the account was operated on 12.11.2021 .
4. OP no.2 stated in WS that the answering Op after receiving death claim intimation from the side of complainant promptly conducted an investigation wherein it was discovered that the actual date of birth of deceased life assured (DLA) was 1.1.1970  however at the signing of enrollment from DLA had maintained as 1.1.1980 which proves that DLA had lied his age and played fraud in order to denied unlawful benefits. DLA was not eligible at the time of taking the policy. By suppressing and concealing the actual age DLA induced the Op to issue the policy which would have not be issue. Complainant is not entitled for the claim.
5. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed their affidavits and papers in support of their pleadings.  

6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.

7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
8. It reveals from the record that the claim was repudiated as per letter dated 14.3.2022 wherein it is mentioned that as per terms and conditions of the scheme maximum age of entry is 50 years and the DLA was over 50 years. Op insurance company has stated that the applicant should not be more than 50 years and any one above the age of 50 is ineligible to apply under the policy .OP insurance company has alleged that DLA was 1.1.1970 at the time signing the enrollment form and he had mentioned the date of birth 1.1.1980 and obtained the policy suppressing and concealing the actual age. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that date of birth of DLA was 1.1.1970 . Complainant has stated that the date birth of DLA was 1.1.1973 and his date of birth was mentioned in the certificate of insurance as 1.1.1980 instead of 1.1.1973 . The DLA was registered  with saving bank account maintained by the bank under the insurance company and the bank employee should have been recorded the date of birth of the DLA as 1.1.1973 in the certificate of insurance. As the complainant’s father was registered under the insurance scheme by the bank employee and therefore  complainant cannot be denied for the relief on account of any act of the bank employee. The DLA was enrolled under the scheme on 25.5.2021 and as per his date of birth 1.1.1973, he was less than 50 years old on the date of registration under the insurance scheme. Thus complainant was appointed as nominee unde the scheme and therefore he was wrongly denied by the op insurance company to settle his claim. Thus the complainant is entitled for the  claim Rs.200000 with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. He is also entitled for Rs.20000 for compensation for harassment and Rs.10000 as litigation expenses.      
9. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainants.
10. We hereby direct the Op no.2 to pay the complainant the amount  Rs.200000 with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum. OP no.2 is also pay to complainant  Rs.20000 for compensation for harassment and Rs.10000 as litigation expenses.
11. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.