Punjab

Sangrur

CC/213/2021

Naveen Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S.Sibia

27 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. 213

  Instituted on:   08.02.2021

                                                                          Decided on:     27.05.2024

 

Naveen Goyal son of Ravinder Goyal, resident of Preet Nagar, Kacha Paha, Jakhal Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Sunam BDPO Office, Patiala Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through is Branch Manager.

 

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For Opp.party            :       Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party  on the ground that mother of the complainant, namely, Smt. Manisha Goyal was having one bank account bearing number 06342010011270 with the OP and she was maintaining the same regularly. Further case of complainant is that in the month of May, 2015 officials of the OP approached to the family of complainant and explained the benefits of Pardhan Mantri Jeevan Bima Yojna and advised about the insurance of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death upto the age of 55 years and the premium amount was to the tune of Rs.330/-. As such parents of the complainant got insured on 29.5.2015 after paying premium of Rs.330/- which was deducted from the account of the mother of the complainant and thereafter the premium was regularly deducted from her account. Further case of the complainant is that on 02.11.2020, mother of complainant died in Fortis Hospital, Ludhiana and after her death complainant approached the OP to get the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and submitted all the relevant documents, but the OP said that the age of the mother of the complainant got 56 years on 12.10.2019, therefore, the bank did not deduct the amount of Rs.330/- in the month of May,2020 as auto renewal charges for PMJBY and hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim.  Further it is averred that as per the documents the date of birth of mother of the complainant, namely, Smt. Manisha Goyal was 12.10.1969 i.e. she was 50 years of age as on 12.10.2019, as such OP was liable to get her insured by deducting the requisite premium and update the record which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. The complainant requested the OP so many times to pay the insurance claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- but all in vain.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is averred that mother of complainant never opened her account in the OP branch rather she opened her account in the other branch which was later on transferred in the branch of the OP. It is further averred that the policy was valid only upto age of 55 years and it was very much clear to the mother of the complainant and it is the only reason for not deducting the renewal charges.  Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit and Ex.OP/2 copy of circular and closed evidence.

4.             We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that mother of the complainant, namely, Manisha Goyal was having one bank account bearing number 06342010011270 with the OP and she was maintaining the same regularly. Further learned counsel for the complainant has contended that in the month of May, 2015 officials of the OP approached to the family of complainant and explained the benefits of Pardhan Mantri Jeevan Bima Yojna and advised about the insurance of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death upto the age of 55 years and the premium amount was to the tune of Rs.330/-, accordingly mother of the complainant was got insured on 29.5.2015 after paying premium of Rs.330/- which was deducted from the account of the mother of the complainant and thereafter the premium was regularly deducted from her account for subsequent years. The grievance of complainant is that on 02.11.2020, mother of complainant died in Fortis Hospital, Ludhiana and after her death the complainant approached the OP to get the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and submitted all the relevant documents, but the OP said that the age of the mother of the complainant got 56 years on 12.10.2019, therefore, the bank did not deduct the amount of Rs.330/- in the month of May 2020 as auto renewal charges for PMJBY and hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim.  The  learned counsel for complainant has further contended that the date of birth of mother of the complainant  Manisha Goyal was 12.10.1969 which is evident from the copy of aadhar Card Ex.C-4 and PAN Card Ex.C-5, as such the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the claim of complainant has wrongly been denied.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the policy was valid only for the persons of age of 55 years and it was very much clear to the mother of the complainant and it is the only reason for not deducting the renewal charges as Manisha Goyal turned to the age of 56 years. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.             After perusal of the whole case file, we find that the OP has miserably failed to prove its case that Manisha Goyal ever turned to the age of 56 years at the time of renewal of the insurance policy.  The OP has not produced iota of evidence to support this contention.  Even the OP has not produced the KYC form and other documents which were in the possession of the OP to show that how they reached to the conclusion that Manisha Goyal crossed the age of 56 years at the time of renewal of the insurance policy and there is no specific reason for not renewal the insurance policy by the OP.  On the other hand, the complainant has produced on record Ex.C-4 copy of aadhar card issued by Government of India, wherein the date of birth is 12.10.1969 and further Ex.C-5 also shows her date of birth as 12.10.1969, meaning thereby the complainant has clearly established on record that even on the date of death i.e. 02.11.2020, late Manisha Goyal has not crossed the age of 55 years rather she was about 51 years.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not renewal of the policy of Manisha Goyal during her life time.  Had the insurance policy renewed by the OP at that time, the complainant must have got the amount of insurance but due to deficiency in service of OP he could not get the insurance claim as the OP without any rhyme or reason did not renew the insurance policy. 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP to pay to the complainant the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 08.02.2021 till realisation. Further OP is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                             Pronounced.

                            May 27, 2024.