Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/226/2017

Sushma Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab and Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Munjal

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.226/ 2017.

Date of Instt.11.09.2017.

Date of Decision:16.10.2018

 

Mrs. Sushma Rani wife of Mahesh Kumar, resident of Main Gali, Nehar Colony, Fatehabad.

 

                                                                   ... Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Punjab & Sind Bank having its branch at G.T. Road, near HDFC Bank, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India having its branch office at sector 3 HUDA near Community Centre, Hisar Road Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   ...Respondents/Ops.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Before:       Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

                   Dr. Rajni Goyat, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Karan Munjal, Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Saneep Tantia, Counsel for the OP no. 1.

Sh. S.K. Dharnia, Counsel for the OP no. 2.

 

ORDER:

 

                   The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that late Shri Mahesh Kumar husband of the complainant had a saving account in Punjab and Sind Bank at Fatehabad having account no. 3121000010897.  It is further submitted that the OP no. 1 approached Shri Mahesh Kumar and apprised him regarding the benefits of life insurance.  On asking and request of OP no. 1 Shri Mahesh Kumar insured his life with the Ops by purchasing a policy vide Master Policy No. 900100012 commencing from 29.5.2015 for a sum assured of Rs. 2 lakhs.  It is further submitted that on 29.5.2015 the OP bank deducted a premium of Rs. 330/- of auto-renewal PMJBY life insurance policy and OP no. 2 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India issued an auto-renewal life insurance policy bearing master policy no. 900100012.

2.                It is further submitted that the husband of the complainant late Shri Mahesh Kumar was hale and healthy at the time of purchasing of the policy and there was no history of any kind of illness at the time of buying of the insurance policy.  However, the life assured Mahesh Kumar unfortunately died on account of heart failure on 30.12.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant being nominee of the life assured in the abovesaid policy intimated regarding the death of the life assured and submitted Claim Form for insurance benefits for a sum assured of Rs. 2 lakhs.  All the requisite documents were also submitted by the complainant with the Ops.  Thereafter, the officials of the Ops assured the complainant that the claim amount under the policy will be paid to the complainant within a short period.  However, till date no amount has been paid to the complainant by the Ops.  It is further submitted that vide order dated 20.8.2017 the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Ops stating that the life assured had not paid the policy premium.  It is further submitted that in a auto-renewal policy the amount is to be deducted from the account of the policy holder without any permission on behalf of the life assured.  Therefore, it was the duty of the OP no. 1 that he had to deduct the premium amount from the policy holders account and transfer the same to OP no. 2.  If there is any mistake on the part of bank and insurance company who had not renewed the policy in that eventuality the life assured cannot be held responsible.  It is further submitted that the repudiation of the genuine claim by the Ops is wrong, illegal, null and void and as such the same is liable to be set aside.  The abovesaid act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  It is further prayed that the Ops may be directed for making a payment of Rs. 2 lakh as insurance claim alongwith other benefits and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  The complainant has further prayed that he is entitled for a compensation amounting to Rs. 1 lakh on account of mental torture and physical harassment.  Hence, the present complaint.

3.                OP no. 1 appeared through its counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability and suppression of material facts etc. have been raised.

4.                In reply on merits, it is submitted that on account of not operating the bank account of Shri Mahesh Kumar the life assured his bank account was added in inoperative mode and when the insurance premium of the insurance policy was to be debited then due to the reason that the account was in inoperative mode the premium of insurance was not debited from the account as per norms and rules of the bank.  The life assured was also having the knowledge of not debiting the premium of the insurance from his bank account.  It is further submitted that in case the insurance premium was not debited from the account due to any technical reason then it was the responsibility of the account holder/life assured to make the payment of insurance premium.  It is further submitted that the policy holder cannot claim any insurance claim for the period for which the insurance premium has not been paid.  However, despite knowledge the life assured Shri Mahesh Kumar did not make payment of the insurance premium.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for an insurance claim.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in rendering service to the complainant in the present case.  The present complaint against OP no. 1 is without any merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 

5.                OP no. 2 also resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to cause of action, maintainability and suppression of true and correct facts etc., have been raised. 

6.                In reply on merits, it is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable against OP no. 2 as Shri Mahesh Kumar the life assured had insured his life under the Master Policy No. 900100012 on 29.5.2015 under PMJBY through OP no. 1 and the said policy was for the period from 29.5.2015 to 28.5.2016.  The OP no. 1 was to deposit the premium amount of Rs. 330/- after receiving the same from Mahesh Kumar life assured.  The insurance policy was to be renewed after every one year on deposit of the premium amount.  However, in the present case neither the life assured nor OP no. 1 deposited the premium for renewal of the insurance policy in question.  Therefore, after passing the period of one year i.e. 28.5.2016 the life assured Shri Mahesh Kumar was not insured with the OP no. 2.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get insurance claim from OP no. 2 under the abovesaid insurance policy.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 2 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP no. 2.

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP no. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Neeraj Pandey Branch Manager as Annexure RW1/A alongwith document as Exhibit R-1.  The learned counsel for OP no. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajender Singh Manager (Legal) as Annexure R-1.

8.                We have duly considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material placed on record.  It is not disputed that the life assured Shri Mahesh Kumar husband of the complainant had purchased an insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 2 lakh from OP no. 2 through OP no. 1 and the date of commencement of the policy was 29.5.2015.  It is also not disputed that the abovesaid PMJBY Life Insurance Policy was a auto-renewal policy and the premium amount was to be deducted from the account of the policy holder without his permission by OP no. 1.  It is also not disputed that after debiting the premium amount from the bank account of the life assured it was the duty of the OP no. 1 to credit the same in the account of the OP no. 2.  It is also not disputed that after 29.5.2015 the premium amount of the abovesaid policy was not credited in the account of the OP no. 2.  It is also not disputed that the policy was to be renewed after receipt of the premium amount by the OP no. 2.

9.                It is the case of the complainant that since it was a auto-renewal policy as such it was the responsibility of the OP no. 1 to debit the insurance premium from the account of the life assured and further credit the same in the account of the OP no. 2.  There was no requirement from seeking any consent from the life assured by the bank debit the amount of premium.  Therefore, there is a deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in not crediting the insurance premium in the account of OP no. 2, whereas sufficient amount was there in the account of life assured at the relevant time.

10.              On the other hand, it is the case of the OP no. 1 that due to not operating the bank account by the life assured Mahesh Kumar his account was added in inoperative mode and when the insurance premium was to be debited then due to the reason that the account of Shri Mahesh Kumar was in inoperative mode the premium of insurance was not debited from the account.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP no. 1 in rendering service to the complainant in the present case.

11.              In view of the position as discussed above, the prime question involved in the case is as to whether when the premium of the life insured was due the bank account of the life assured was in a inoperative mode or not.  The document Annexure C-1 issued by OP no. 1 defines the inoperative accounts.  As per para 1 Clause (a) of the abovesaid documents a saving as well as current account shall be treated as inoperative if there are no transactions (i.e. no credit or debit other than crediting of periodic interest or debiting of service charges) in the account for over a period of 2 years.

12.              From perusal of the abovesaid definition, it is revealed that in case for a period of 2 years there is no transaction in the saving or current account in that eventuality the said account shall be treated as inoperative.  However, crediting the periodic interest or debiting of service charges is not treated as a transaction.  In view of the above, all operations except crediting of periodic interest or debiting of service charges shall be treated a transaction.  A circular dated 11 September 2014 issued by Reserve Bank of India (Annexure C-2) provides that inoperative accounts in banks in terms of which a savings as well as current account should be treated as inoperative if there are no transactions in the account for over a period of 2 years.  The abovesaid circular further provides that for the purpose of classifying an account as inoperative both the device of transactions i.e. debit as well as credit transactions induced at the instance of customers as well as third party should be considered.  The saving bank account can be treated as inoperative account only after 2 years from the date of the last credit entry. 

13.              In the present case, the first premium was paid by the life assured on 29.5.2015 and the next premium was due in the month of June 2016.  From perusal of the document Annexure C-7, that is statement account of the life assured Shri Mahesh Kumar, it is revealed that on 7^th April 2016 an amount of Rs. 28,876/- and an amount of Rs. 33,320/- has been credited in the account of the life assured.  From the same, it is evident that transactions had taken place in the account of the life assured in April 2016 and as such the account of the life assured cannot become inoperative in the month of June 2016.  Therefore, the contention of the OP no. 1 that in the month of June 2016 premium was due for renewal the account of the life assured had become inoperative is not tenable.  Since as per terms and conditions of the policy, the mode of payment is that the premium will be directly auto-debited by the bank from the subscribers savings bank account.  Therefore, as per terms and conditions of the policy, it was obligatory on the part of bank to debit the premium amount from the saving account of the life assured and credit the same in the account of the life insurance company.  However, in the present case the OP no. 1 failed to do so.  We are of the considered opinion that the said act on the part of OP no. 1 amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant.  Therefore, the present complaint is allowed  against OP no. 1.  The OP no. 1 is accordingly directed for making a payment of Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant on account of insurance claim.  The OP no. 1 is further directed for making a payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and litigation charges.  The present order be complied with within a period of 30 days, otherwise the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the default period.  The complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency on the part of OP no. 2.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM.                                                              Dt.16.10.2018          

                                                                       (Raghbir Singh)

   President

   (Rajni Goyat)   (Jasvinder Singh)           District Consumer Disputes                       

Member        Member                        Redressal Fourm,Fatehabad

 

 

 

 

Present:      Sh. Karan Munjal, Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Saneep Tantia, Counsel for the OP no. 1.

Sh. S.K. Dharnia, Counsel for the OP no. 2.

 

 

                   Arguments concluded. To come up on 16.10.2018 for order.

 

   President

                                                                                12.10.2018                     

  Member                  Member              

 

Present:      Sh. Karan Munjal, Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Saneep Tantia, Counsel for the OP no. 1.

Sh. S.K. Dharnia, Counsel for the OP no. 2.

 

 

                             Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced:16.10.2018

(Raghbir Singh)

   President

     (Rajni Goyat)           (Jasvinder Singh)                                                                      

Member                    Member