J&K STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION AT JAMMU

Bench:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd) Bashir A. Kirmani                                              President

Shri D.K. Kapoor                                                                                            Judicial Member

Complaint No. 3490 of 2013

Date of Institution:20.06.2013

Date of Order:16.01.2015.

1. Tania Jamwal                                      Versus             1.Life Insurance Corporation of India
2. Kunal Singh Jamwal                                                        through its Branch Manager,
3. Prabha Jamwal                                                                R.S. Pura, Opposite Bana Singh
4.  
4. Savita Devi W/o late
5. Singh Jamwal                                                2. The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.

Minors 1-3 through                                                          through its Manager

Their mother, Devi                                                Road, Jammu

Rs/o 115, New Plot,

No. 1, Jammu.

               (Complainants)                                                                         (Respondents)

Appearing Counsel:

______________________________________________________________________________

            President

1  Deceased husband of 4^th complainant late Sukhdev Singh Jamwal employed as Chowkidar in Governor’s House was holder of “Jeevan Saral” insurance policy No.Mp143368891 commencing from 21.12.2011. He passed away during night intervening 25/26 March, 2012, whereupon said complainant claimed the insurance amount which respondent insurer declined on ground that policy had lapsed due to non-payment of yearly premium due for payment on 21.2.2012, extendable alongwith grace period of one month till 21.3.2012 only. Feeling aggrieved she alongwith her minor children, the first three complainants instituted this complaint to seek benefits under aforesaid policy on the ground that policy was of ECS (Electronic Clearance Services) category/status whereunder mode of premium payment was debiting the amount of premium from the Bank A/c of insured (No.0021040/000/41889 in Shalimar Road branch of 2^nd respondent) which was not done and the policy allowed to lapse without intimation to policy holder. In response while first respondent maintains that the claim was not admissible because of policy having been in lapsed condition for non payment of premium in February, 2012 invoice for the same having been dishonoured by first respondent under TR No.291764 dated 6.3.2012 for ”miscellaneous “ reasons, the 2^nd respondent inter alia contended that they were not service providers to the deceased policy holder and as such his successors had no cause to agitate against them. During course of proceedings 4^th complainant and nodal officers of respondents have furnished their affidavits which are on file and have been referred to by appearing counsel during course of submissions.

2 We have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Admitted facts of the case are that deceased father of first three complainants, a boy and two girls all minors and husband of the 4^th was holder of aforesaid policy for the period mentioned which had been drawn under ECS mode; that the policy was in lapsed condition for want of due premium when the policy holder passed away, and that on due date for payment of premium amount money was in his account. The central theme of the case therefore appears to be, as to who precisely was responsible for lapse of policy due to non-payment of premium; the deceased policy holder or anyone of the two respondents. It is not denied that under ECS mode the routine way of collecting premium in the policy was debiting the same from policy holder’s bank account on demand of insurer as had been done previously; and that being so, the deceased policy holder with sufficient amount in his bank account on due date of premium had enough reasons to rest assured regarding its deduction. So he would not be responsible for lapse of policy which has thus to be fixed with either or both of respondents, who appear to have an arrangement interse for realisation of premium amount through ECS mode, procedure whereof in view of pleadings appears to be that first respondent would demand the same from 2^nd who would debit it to account of policy holder to the credit of first respondent, which however did not happen, reasons for which as projected by respondent No.1 is that requisition was rejected by 2^nd respondent on 6.3.2012, who on his own does not appear to have pleaded a positive stand on that. During arguments however their counsel submitted that description of policy holder/bank account on the invoice was not adequate. Core issue in the matter therefore would be as to who among respondents caused lapse of the policy; determination whereof would require perusal of records. Let us examine. 

3 First important document is the photo copy of deceased policy holder’s pass book pertaining to his A/c No. 002180041889 in 2^nd respondent according to which his credit balance on relevant date was more than Rs.15000/- on 10.2.2012, more than Rs.10000/- on 14.2.2012 and on 4^th March and Rs.1183/- on 6.3.2012 with the amount of premium being Rs.1021/- falling due in February, 2012 which shows that he had enough money in the account to meet the amount of premium.  Second in row is the photo copy of return memo wherein requisition of first respondent appears to have been rejected for ”miscellaneous” reasons not specifically spelled out which by itself sufficiently shows that the first respondent did as a matter of fact make requisition for securing the amount of premium further elucidated by photo copies of the their correspondence with second confirming having sent invoice for premium amount to them. According to photo copy of 2^nd respondent’s memo the rejection of invoice for “miscellaneous” reasons is shown to have been made vide RBI sequence No.2000462572 under which the policy holder could enquire about reasons of refusal from his bank. That the invoice suffered mismatch in description of policy holder/ his Account does not appear to be so, because in such cases reportedly the invoices are returned with the note that “Account description does not tally”, which is not the cause projected for rejection of memo. Photo copy of the return memo furnished by respondent bank however shows that the requisition did not pertain to them, something neither pleaded nor ever projected.

4 The situation obtaining thus cumulatively is that the policy under reference having been of ECS mode first respondent had to collect the amount of premium from the 2^nd respondent through an invoice which they did, but was turned down by 2^nd respondent for miscellaneous reasons not specifically spelled out. Statement of their Manager that requisite steps to realise the amount of premium from the deceased policy holder’s account were not taken by insurer company appears to be wrong . None of respondents however, alleges that on relevant time sufficient amount was not lying in policy holder’s account or that there was something wrong in description of either the A/c holder or any entry in his account. That being so the deceased policy holder & through him the complainants automatically emerge as victims of the lapse to which both the respondents have contributed their bit; respondent bank by dishonouring the invoice of insurance company and the company by not intimating dishonouring of invoice to the policy holder who would definitely arrange for premium either through bank or otherwise and that is perhaps what grace period for premium payment is meant for. Had bank not refused payment of premium through ECS mode, and the insurer company informed policy holder of non-receipt of the premium amount the policy would perhaps not have lapsed. Without intimation the deceased policy holder could not act presumptively for the reason of being assured that the premium would be deducted from his account as previously the practice had been. Result therefore, is that while claimants succeed, both the respondents appear to be equally responsible for non-payment of insurance amount to them, a youthful widow and three minor children, a son and two daughters left to face vagaries of life without any tangible support.

5 In conclusion therefore, the complaint is allowed and an award for Rs.2.50 lac the amount of insurance payable under “Jeevan Saral” policy of the deceased is passed in favour of claimants alongwith Rs.25000/- as compensation for annoyance, inconvenience and legal expenses suffered by them, raising liability of respondents to Rs.2.75 lac which they shall share equally, for payment to complainants or depositing in this Commission within a period of four weeks from now. Matters stands accordingly disposed of. Office to follow-up.

Sd/                                                                                                                 SD/

Member                                                                                                          President