Complainant Gulzar Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to honour his claim and make the payment of insured amount qua his claim in terms of the Insurance Policy. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that his son was holding Saving Bank account No.848900100001533 with the opposite party no.1 and was also insured for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under Pardhan Mantri Jeeva Jyoti Bima Yojna vide policy no.8489000084 and he was paying premiums as per rules/policies. Unfortunately his son fell ill and remained admitted at DMC Ludhiana from 30.06.2016 to 09.07.2016 and ultimately died on 9.7.2016 as natural death all of sudden. Information regarding death of his son was duly given to the opposite party no.1 by him. Thereafter, he submitted claim for payment of the insured amount alongwith all vested benefits to the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 assured him that case for the payment of due amount has been prepared and submitted to opposite party no.3 but till today he has not received any amount from the opposite parties.  He paid number of visits to the office of opposite parties time and again and requested for doing needful into the matter, but till today no action into the matter has been taken at any level. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.         Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted that Sh.Manjot Singh the son of the complainant was holding Saving Bank Account in the Bank at Branch Dalla, District Gurdaspur. On the request of Sh.Manjot Singh, he was enrolled under Pardhan Mantri Jeeva Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) on 12.5.2015 and he authorized the opposite party bank to debit the annual premium of Rs.330/- from his Saving Bank Account maintained with the opposite party no.1. Thereafter a premium of Rs.330/- was auto debited from his Account on 2.6.2015 by opposite party no.1 and 2 which was further remitted to opposite party no.3 LIC on 6.6.2015. The policy was due for renewal on or before 31.5.2016. It was next submitted that this policy could not be renewed due to insufficient balance in the Account of Sh.Manjot Singh in the month of May 2016.  In the meantime, an E Mail dated 22.6.2016 was received from the opposite party no.3.  In the meanwhile sufficient balance was made available on 24.6.2016 in the Account of Manjot Singh and thereafter a sum of Rs.330/- was auto debited from his Saving Bank Account on 30.6.2016 and the same was remitted to LIC on 30.6.2016. Thus, the L.I.C. of India i.e. opposite party no.3 is liable to pay the insured amount if found eligible to the complainant. Manjot Singh was insured by the LIC i.e. opposite party no.3. According to Pardhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yozna (PMJJBY) of Govt. Of India, the role of the opposite party Bank is that of a  facilitator between the insured and the insurer. The Bank acts only as enrolment Agency whose role is limited to enrolment, remittance of premium to insurer and lodgment of the claim if any.  It was further submitted that as per record Sh.Manjot Singh died on 9.7.2016. His death claim under PMJJBY was received by the Head Office i.e. opposite party no.2 through the Branch Office i.e. opposite party no.1 at Regional Office Amritsar which was duly forwarded to the Office of LIC of India. As per requirement of the LIC, all the documents including copy of Death Certificate, copy of Matriculation Certificate and Pan Card of the deceased were submitted to LIC vide letter of the Bank dated 20.7.2017. Thus the claim was duly lodged with the opposite party no.3 i.e. LIC by the opposite party Bank and thereafter it was followed for settlement telephonically, through reminders and personally as well. The said claim was rejected by the opposite party no.3 i.e. LIC. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. The complainant submitted the claim to the opposite party no.1 which was duly submitted and forwarded for consideration to the opposite party no.3 by the opposite party no.2.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action in his favour to file the present complaint against the opposite party no.3. On merits, it was admitted that son of complainant was holding Saving Bank Account No.84890100001533 with the opposite party no.1 and he was insured for Rs.2,00,000/- under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Yojna.  Claim is not payable because the risk premium was not deducted from the Saving Bank account of the deceased in time. The premium was deducted on 30.6.2016 and lien clause of 45 days is operative in this case. The first premium for the deceased life was deducted on 02.06.2015 for the year 2015-2016 and again on 30.6.2016 for the policy year 2016-17. As per the rules of the scheme for continuation of the risk the premium amount should have been deducted by auto debit from the Bank account of the deceased on or before 31.05.2016. As there was no sufficient balance in his Saving Account the same was not deducted and subsequently it was deducted on 30.06.2017. As per the rules of the Scheme assurance for the deceased's life had terminated on 31.05.2016 and on subsequent deduction of the premium on 30.06.2016, the life was to be treated as new member with a lien clause of 45 days being applicable. Since the date of death of the deceased is 09.07.2016 which falls within 45 days of lien, the death claim is not permissible under the scheme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.       Ld.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

6.     Ld.counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Smt.Meenakshi Arora wife of Sh.Ajay Arora, Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/9 and closed the evidence.

7.    Sh.Mohinder Pal Kalotra tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 and copy of letter of Ministry of Finance dated 2.5.2016 Ex.OP-3/2 in 13 pages and closed the evidence.

8.         Written arguments have not been filed by both the parties.

9.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

10.      In the present complaint the complainant, father of the deceased Manjot Singh has filed the complaint to seek insured amount under (PMJJBY) from opposite party no.3. The premium for the said policy amounting to Rs.330/- was first paid on 2.6.2015 and subsequently renewal for second year the same was auto debited by opposite party no.1 on 24.6.2016 and further remitted to LIC opposite party no.3. Complainant has claimed the relief on account of the premiums so paid but the  same was denied by LIC opposite party no.3 as the second premium was paid during lien period, but opposite party no.3 has failed to produce or place on record the said insurance policy and also at no stage mentioned/intimated the termination of the said policy on account of non payment of renewal premium in time as alleged in written statement. Ex.OP-3/2 has been placed on record by opposite party no.3 wherein an amendment has been proposed in the policy but the same has not been intimated to complainant/insurer. Since the premium has been paid by insurer during his life time and opposite party has not raised any objection during the life time of Manjot Singh so opposite party no.3 is liable for payment of the said insured amount.

11.      In view of the abovesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of this case, we partly allow the complaint. Opposite party no.3 is directed to pay the sum insured within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which opposite party shall pay interest @9% p.a. to the complainant. No order as to costs.

12.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President   

Announced:                                                   (Raghbir Singh Sukhija)

June 17, 2022                                                       Member

*MK*