Punjab

Sangrur

CC/477/2018

Baljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajan Kapil

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 477

 Instituted on:   20.11.2018

                                                                        Decided on:     07.11.2022

 

Baljeet Kaur wife of Late Amrik Singh, resident of Village Chhahar, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab National Bank Branch Chatha Nanhera, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Unit No.701-702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27 M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

 

For the complainant    : Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For  OP No.1                  : Shri Parmod Saxena , Adv.

For OP No.2                   : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL     : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                               : MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH                  : MEMBER

         ORDER BY

          JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

               

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that in the year 2012 her husband, namely, Amrik Singh obtained an agricultural limit (loan) amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- and also as per government policy insurance policy was issued to him stating that if there is any mishappening then the loan amount will be recovered from the insurance company. Accordingly the husband of the complainant was issued two insurance policies by OP number 2 bearing number 20959018 and 21693650 in favour of Shri Amrik Singh and the premium of the same was paid by him accordingly.

2.             In the present case the grievance of complainant is that after death of husband of complainant/life insured, the complainant lodged the claim with the OPs for remission of the loan amount and also requested to release the amount of insurance, but no amount was paid to the complainant despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thereafter the payment of Rs.3,03,490/- was deposited in the bank account of complainant against policy number 21693650. Further the OPs also deposited an amount of Rs.1,48,707/- against policy number 20959018 and the remaining amount is still due.  As such, the complainant requested the OPs to release the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,51,293/- and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and an amount of Rs.6500/- as litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1 it is denied that the OP number 1 ever assured the complainant that the amount of loan will be recovered from the insurance company. It has been stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint only to avoid liability of the loan account. It is stated further that complete amount of policy number 21693650 has been deposited in the bank account of the complainant and also the amount of policy number 20959018 has also been deposited in the account of the complainant. The amount of claim received by the complainant neither deposited in the loan account nor in the limit account. The claim if pending is then it is dispute between the complainant and the insurance company.  Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false and frivolous, that the complaint is not maintainable. It has been stated that an amount of Rs.3,03,490/- has already been paid to Baljit Kaur against policy number 21693650 and an amount of Rs.1,43,802/- has already been paid against policy number 20959018 on 27.09.2018. On merits, it has been denied that the whole loan amount shall be payable by the company. In the detailed reply, it has been stated that the life assured was insured for Rs.3,00,000/- under policy number 20959018 with the policy commencement date as 24.11.2012 and premium was to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, the life assured was insured for Rs.1,66,200/- under policy number 21693650 and premium due was to the tune of Rs.31,050/- with the policy commencement date as 30.09.2015. It is admitted that the life assured Amrik Singh died on 12.12.2017 and after getting the documents the claim was processed under both the policies and it was found that policy bearing number 20959018 was lapsed as the life assured did not pay the premium due on 24.11.2016 and consequently the policy was lapsed, however, the fund value to the tune of Rs.1,48,707/- was paid and against policy number 21693650 full amount of Rs.3,03,490/- was paid as per terms and conditions of the policy. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits. The complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 affidavit and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/3 copies of documents and Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Shri BL Juneja and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/5 copies of documents and Ex.OP2/6 affidavit of Shri Rajeev Sharma and closed evidence.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that husband of complainant had taken two life insurance policies form the OP during his life time.  It is also not in dispute that after the death of Shri Amrik Singh, life assured, the OP number 1 paid the claim amount of Rs.3,03,490/- against policy number 21693650 and also paid an amount of Rs.1,48,707/- against policy number 20959018 being the fund value as the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of the life assured. 

8.             In the present case, the dispute is over the non payment of full amount under policy number 20959018 as the payment of Rs.1,48,707/- has only been made on the ground that the policy in question was in the lapsed condition.  The learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that the policy had lapsed due to the negligence of OPs.  To support this contention, the learned counsel for complainant has drawn the contention of this Commission on the copy of bank statement Ex.OP1/3, which clearly shows that the premium due in the year 2016 towards policy number 21693650 was deducted twice from the account number 1368000100074118 on 31.10.2016 and 13.12.2016 and no premium amount was deducted against policy in dispute bearing number 20959018 and as such, the policy went in the lapsed mode, which is only due to the negligence of the OPs and the husband of the complainant was not aware about this development during his life time.  To support the allegations in the complaint, the complainant has also produced on record her affidavit Ex.C-3.  The complainant has also produced on record Ex.C-4 the insurance policy, effective date of which was 24.11.2012. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the premium amount was deducted twice against policy number 21693650 and why the amount was not deducted against policy in dispute having number 20959018, which went in the lapsed mode due to negligence of OPs.  In the written reply filed by OP number 2 it is mentioned that the policy bearing number 20959018 lapsed due to non payment of premium due on 24.11.2016 and the policy lapsed on 24.12.2016.  Ex.OP2/1 which is the copy of the insurance policy number 20959018 shows the payment mode was annual and the sum assured is Rs.3,00,000/-.  From the above, it is clear that the policy bearing number 20959018 had elapsed due to the twice deduction of premium by OPs from the account of the complainant, which is maintained with the OP number 1.  In the circumstances, we find it to be a fit case, where there is a mistake of OPs in deducting the premium twice against one policy and for the said mistake, the complainant cannot be made to suffer.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant the remaining amount  against policy number 20959018  alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.11.2018 till realization in full. We further direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of  60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

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

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 7, 2022.

 

            (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member             Member                     President