Haryana

Karnal

CC/455/2019

Sonu Dull - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Balinder Sandhu

08 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 455 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.23.07.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:08.07.2022

 

Sonu Dhull age about 32 years son of Shri Dalbir Singh, resident of near Shiv Mandir, village and Post Office Padha, Sub Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office-1, Pension & Group Schemes Unit, “Jeevan Prakash” 6^th and 7^th floor, 25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.

 

2.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, branch office, Sector-12, City Center, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member 

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Sh. Balinder Sandhu, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the Government of India formulated a scheme Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna and the mother of complainant namely Sheela Devi applied in the said policy and as per the norms of said policy, OPs deducted Rs.330/- per annum from the account of mother of complainant  and as per the norms of said scheme, the death assured amount is Rs.2,00,000/-. The OPs every year deducted Rs.330/- on 16.06.2015, 25.05.2016 and 22.05.2017 from the bank account of mother of complainant, vide account no.3270000100107067 maintained in Punjab National Bank, Branch Padha, District Karnal. In the said policy complainant is nominee of insured-Sheela Devi. It is further averred that at the time of purchasing the said policy the age of mother of the complainant was about 45 years as per the Voter Card and Ration Card. Unfortunately, on 17.10.2017 the mother of complainant died. After the death of his mother, complainant approached the OPs and requested to pass the death claim of his mother and also submitted all the necessary documents. Firstly, OP lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly declined the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 16.02.2019 by saying that as per the date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card the said policy is not valid. It is averred that the age of the father of the complainant namely Dalbir Singh i.e. the husband of deceased Smt. Sheela Devi is 06.05.1967 and the mother of complainant is younger than her husband but due to some inadvertence the concerned computer operator wrongly entered the date of birth of mother of complainant is 1963. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to consider the date of birth as per the documents submitted by his mother at the time of opening the bank account i.e. voter card and ration card, but OPs refused to do so. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.04.2019 to the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the scheme of Pradan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna offers One Year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible Saving Bank Account holders through Banks as per circular no.P&GS/1369 dated 01.06.2015 as per which the Bank will act as the Master Policy holder who have entered into MOU with LIC and MPH is 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 enrollment forms, transfer of data in the format prescribed, remit appropriate and reconciled premium to LIC on time, receiving the death intimations and submissions of relevant claim papers to the Designated LIC office.

Eligibility:- All Savings 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.

It is further pleaded that the premium was not deducted by the OP. The master policy holder under the said PMJJBY scheme is Punjab National Bank who deduced the premium from the bank account of the account holder Smt. Sheela Devi as per rules of scheme. Moreover, the concerned bank i.e. PNB has not been arrayed as a party to the present complaint. It is further pleaded that as per the rules of the abovesaid scheme, age criteria to become member is 18 to 50 years. As per document submitted by the Master Policy Holder i.e. Punjab National Bank, the age of the deceased Sheela Devi at that time of becoming a member of the PMJJBY scheme has been more than 50 years. Her date of birth is 01.01.1963 and the age has been 52 years 5 months and 15 days as on 16.06.2015 when she was enrolled for the said scheme. The claim papers received by the OPs on 15.05.2018 from the Master Policy holder and the reasons for rejections of the claim was intimated vide letter dated 27.06.2018. Thus, as per the abovementioned submission the deceased did not fulfill the basic eligibility conditions of the scheme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of reply of OP dated 16.02.2019 Ex.C2, copy of claim form Ex.C3, copy of bank pass book of Sheela Devi Ex.C4, copy of death certificate of Sheela Devi Ex.C5, copy of Aadhar card of Ranvir Singh Ex.C6, copy of ration card Ex.C7, copy of Aadhar card slip Ex.C8, copy of legal notice dated 06.04.2019 Ex.C9, postal receipt Ex.C10, copy of voter card of Sheela Devi Ex.C11, copy of Aadhar card of Sheela Devi Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 16.06.2020.

5.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for complainant has tendered copy of ration card Ex.C13 and Ex.C14, copy of matriculation certificate of complainant Ex.C15, copy of Aadhar card and PAN card of complainant Ex.C16 and closed his additional evidence on 27.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Puneet Kumar, Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of letter dated 05.05.2015 Ex.OP1, copy of Rules Ex.OP2, copy of administrative instructions Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 08.10.2021 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the Government of India formulated a scheme Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna and the mother of complainant namely Sheela Devi applied in the said policy and as per the norms of said policy, OPs deducted Rs.330/- per annum from the account of mother of complainant and as per the norms of said scheme, the death assured amount is Rs.2,00,000/-. The OPs every year had deducted Rs.330/- on 16.06.2015, 25.05.2016 and 22.05.2017 from the bank account of mother of complainant. In the said policy complainant is nominee of insured-Sheela Devi. He further argued that at the time of purchasing the said policy the age of mother of the complainant was about 45 years as per the Voter Card and Ration Card. On 17.10.2017 the mother of complainant had died. After the death of his mother complainant being nominee approached the OPs and requested to pass the death claim of his mother and also submitted all the necessary documents, but OPs declined the claim of the complainant, vide letter dated 16.02.2019 by saying that as per the date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card the said policy is not valid. He further argued that the age of the father of the complainant namely Dalbir Singh i.e. the husband of deceased Smt. Sheela Devi is 06.05.1967 and the mother of complainant is younger than her husband but due to some inadvertence the concerned computer operator wrongly entered the date of birth of mother of complainant is 1963 and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Government has launched a scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) offers One Year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible saving bank account holder as per circular no.P&GS/1369 dated 01.06.2015. As per this scheme, the Bank will act as the Master Policy holder (MPH). As per this scheme all Savings 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. He further argued that  master policy holder under the said PMJJBY scheme is Punjab National Bank who deduced the premium from the bank account of the account holder Smt. Sheela Devi as per rules of scheme. Moreover, the concerned bank i.e. PNB has not been arrayed as a party to the present complaint. He further argued that  as per document submitted by the Master Policy Holder i.e. Punjab National Bank, the age of the deceased Sheela Devi at that time of becoming a member of the PMJJBY scheme has been more than 50 years. Her date of birth is 01.01.1963. The claim papers received by the OPs on 15.05.2018 from the Master Policy holder and the reasons for rejections of the claim was intimated vide letter dated 27.06.2018. Thus, as per the abovementioned submission the deceased did not fulfill the basic eligibility conditions of the scheme and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.             Admittedly, Government has launched a scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) offers One Year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible saving bank account holder as per circular no.P&GS/1369 dated 01.06.2015. It is also admitted the mother of the complainant was the account holder in the Punjab National Bank, who will act as a master policy holder (MPH). All saving banks account holder in the age group 18 years (completed) and 50 years (age near birthday) were eligible for taking the said scheme.

12.           It is evident from death certificate Ex.C5, the mother of complainant had expired on 17.10.2017. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP on the ground that the account holder/Sheela Devi was not entitled for the said scheme as she was more than 50 years old at the time of taking the abovesaid scheme.

13.           It is evident from the Aadhar card of Sheela Devi Ex.C12 the date of birth        is 01.01.1963 and policy in question was launched on 01.06.2015, at the time of taking this policy the age of Sheela Devi was more than 50 years.

14.           It is also evident from Ex.OP2, scope of coverage defined in Rules for Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY), which reproduced as under:-

Scope of coverage:- All savings bank account holders in the age 18 to 50 years in participating banks will be entitled to join, in case of multiple saving bank accounts held by an individual in one or different banks, the person would be eligible to join the scheme through one savings bank account only. Aadhar would be the primary KYC for the bank account.

 

As per the above scope of coverage all saving bank accounts holder in the age 18 to 50 years is eligible for the said scheme and Aadhar would be the primary KYC for the bank account.

15.           Complainant has relied upon the copy of Ration Card Ex.C13 and Ex.C14. In Ration Card Ex.C13 there is overwriting in the column of age of Dharampal as well as Sheela Devi and in Ex.C14 the name of Sheela Devi has been deleted. Except these documents there are no other relevant documents to prove the exact age of Sheela Devi. Complainant also relied upon of his school certificate Ex.C15, PAN Card and Aadhar Card Ex.C16, Voter card of Sheela Devi Ex.C11, Aadhar card of Dalbir Singh Ex.C6 etc. but these documents are not helpful to prove the age of deceased Sheela Devi.

16.           It is evident from the bank account pass book Ex.C4, Dalbir Singh husband of deceased Sheela Devi is nominee. It is not the case of the complainant that said Dalbir is no more and that’s why he has filed the present complaint. It is also evident from the said pass book the account of Sheela Devi in Punjab National Bank. As per the above mentioned scheme Ex.OP2, the concerned bank was the Master Policy Holder and premium was also deducted from the said bank account but complainant has not impleaded the said bank as a party in the present complaint.

17.           In view of the discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:08.07.2022.

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

           (Vineet Kaushik)                     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                  Member                                Member