Haryana

StateCommission

A/56/2021

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDRO DEVI AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH GARG

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:05.03.2021

                Date of final hearing:28.03.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:29.03.2024

 

First Appeal No.56 of 2021

 

IN THE MATTER OF

Punjab National Bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce), near Ghanta Ghar Chowk, GT Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager Shri Sanjeev Kumar.

.….Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Pulkit Goyal, Advocate

Versus

1.      Indro Devi, age 52 years wife of late Shri Karan Singh son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of Jarifabad Manjoora, Tehsil and District Karnal.

…..Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate.

 

2.      Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, 149, Jiwan Parkash building, Unit-1, Model Town, Karnal through its Manager.

…..Respondent No.2.

Through counsel Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate.

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Pulkit Goyal, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Naren Pratap Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.12.2020, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“In view of the abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for litigation expenses. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.”  

 

2.                The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that the husband of complainant namely Shri Karan Singh (since deceased) son of Shri Tara Chand opened an account bearing No.00362011001286 with branch of OP No.1. Husband of complainant obtained policy as per Central Government Policy under the “Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Bima Yojna” and “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna”. An amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- were deducted on 20.06.2015 by the OP No.1 from the account of husband of complainant for the abovesaid respective policies. Similarly, on 27.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 abovesaid policies were renewed by deducting the premium. Thereafter, husband of complainant expired on 26.08.2016 and complainant being nominee visited the office of OP No.1 so many times and requested for releasing the insurance amount under the abovesaid policy. It was alleged that OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further alleged that the complainant also sent a legal notice dated 15.02.2018 through her counsel in this regard but it also did not yield any result. It was further alleged that thereafter, the complainant also filed an application under section 2 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in which OP No.1 disclosed the name of OP No.2 as insurer. OP No.1 appeared before the Hon’ble court but after availing several opportunities did not file the written statement just to linger on the matter. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs have appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written versions. OP No.1 while submitting its written version raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it was submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP No.2 on the ground of eligibility. It was submitted that as per scheme, a person is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- during the age of 18 to 70 years by deducting an amount of Rs.12/- from the account of the account holder. Further, as per the said scheme the insured is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of accidental death only. On the other hand, as per the another scheme a person is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, during the age of 18 to 50 years by deducting an amount of Rs.330/- from the account of the account holder. It was further submitted that the account holder has submitted the Voter ID and Driving License at the time of opening of the account. The date of birth as per the driving license was 15.03.1968, which indicates that the deceased was less than 50 years at the time of opening of the account. After the death when complainant submitted the claim alongwith Aadhaar card of the deceased (which was the only authentic proof as per the instructions of the Govt. of India) which shows that the deceased was more than 50 years as the date of birth was indicated as 01.01.1964. So, the deceased was not entitled for the insurance claim. It was further submitted that the act of the deceased was illegal and unwarranted as he has suppressed the true and material facts with regard to his age at the time of purchasing the policy. It was further submitted that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP No.2 and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. It was further submitted that the complainant had already filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal and which was pending for disposal. Finally, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP No.2 in its written version raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it was submitted that complainant was not entitled to any relief as prayed for as the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna offers one year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible Saving Bank Account holders through Banks introduced as per CIR.No.P&GS/1369 dated 01.06.2015. The bank was acting as the Master Policy Holder who has entered into MOU with LIC and MPH was responsible for enrollment of members as per rules and eligibility criteria. The MPH must ensure age eligibility criteria for coverage, recovering premium through “Auto Debit” preserving the content-cum-declaration form i.e. enrollment form and remittance of premium to LIC.

“Enrolment period: The initial enrolment period will be upto 31^st May, 2015 and last enrolment will be possible upto 31^st August, 2015 or upto any extended period as may be decided by Government by paying annual premium of Rs.330/- for uniform and fixed coverage of Rs.2 lakhs.

Period of Cover: The period of cover will be for one year commencing from 01.06.2015 and renewable every year with 1^st June as Annual Renewable Date.

Eligibility: All saving Bank Account holders in the age group 18 years (completed) and 50 years (age nearer birthday) as on 01.06.2015 or on the subsequent date of joining the scheme are eligible to join the Scheme.

Termination of Assurance: It must be noted that it will not be possible to enter into the scheme beyond the age of 50 years.”

It was further submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as per claim paper, age proof of Aadhaar card for KYC & death certificate submitted to the respondent by the complainant through M.P.H. Oriental Bank of Commerce, the date of birth of the deceased as per submitted age proof of Aadhar card is 01.01.1964, which was beyond permissible age of entry at the time of joining of scheme i.e.20.06.2015 he was more than 50 years. Moreover, the age of the deceased mentioned in death certificate is 53 years which was issued by Government of Haryana, Department of Health Services, Community Health Centre, Jundla. Hence, the claim is rejected as per term and conditions of the policy. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint and directions were issued to the OPs as mentioned in para 1^st (supra).

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-OP No.2 has preferred this appeal for setting-aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri Pulkit Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Naren Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Rohit Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever  evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                It is an admitted fact that before filing the complaint before learned District Commission, the complainant had also filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal and the same has been withdrawn, vide order dated 13.07.2019. It is also an admitted fact that the complaint filed before Permanent Lok Adalat has not been decided on merits. However, it is settled law that the principle of res-judicata is not applied on the complaint in case previous complaint has been withdrawn without being heard on merits. Hence, the principle of res-judicata is not applicable in the present case.

9.                It is also an admitted fact that the husband of complainant was having a saving bank account No.00362011001286 with OP No.1 (present appellant) and he has obtained Central Government policies under “Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Bima Yojna” and “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna” by deduction of an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- respectively from his savings bank account. It is also an admitted fact that there is no dispute regarding the policy of “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna”.

10.              From the perusal of record, it reveals that as per “Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana” Rules, the eligibility for obtaining the scheme is that the person should have a saving bank account and should be aged between 18 years (completed) and 50 years (age nearer birthday) and who has given the consent to join the scheme during the enrolled period. Aadhaar Card would be the primary KYC for the bank account. On the other hand, it is also admitted by present appellant (OP No.1)  that the husband of complainant was less than 50 years and was eligible for obtaining the scheme on the basis of Voter ID and Driving License as his date of birth was mentioned as 15.03.1968. It is also admitted that the husband of complainant had died on 26.08.2016 and as per Aadhaar card of her husband, his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1964, according to which, he was more than 50 years of age at the time of joining the scheme.

11.              Further, from the perusal of records, it reveals that as per School Certificate of the deceased the date of birth of the husband of complainant was 01.02.1969, as per Aadhar card his date of birth is 01.01.1964 and as per voter ID and driving license as alleged by present appellant-OP No.1, his date of birth was 15.03.1968. There are three different dates of birth on record belonging to the deceased.

12.               In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that it is also a settled law that for determination of age of any person school records have more probative value than any other documents. As per School Certificate issued by Head Teacher, Government Public School Zarifabad, Karnal dated 28.11.2018, the date of birth of husband of complainant is 01.02.1969. Thus, it is very much clear that policy was obtained on 19.06.2016 and the deceased was less than 50 years of age at the time of obtaining the policy. So, the respondent No.1 (complainant) is entitled to benefits of the scheme of “Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Jyoti Bima Yojna”.

13.              In the present case the appellant (OP No.1) is a Bank where the account of the deceased was opened and through whom the aforesaid policy was obtained by the deceased as well as deduction of premium of the aforesaid policy was made by the appellant (OP No.1). The respondent No.2-OP No.2 (LIC) has covered the life of deceased. Apparently, the appellant (Punjab National Bank) as well as respondent No.2 (LIC) both are deficient in rendering their services.
14.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings given by the learned District Commission on merits. Impugned order dated 08.12.2020 passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is therefore, dismissed.

15.              Statutory amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited at the time of present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and as per rules.

16.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

17.              Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

18.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 29^th March, 2024

                                                                                       

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III