Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/53

Lakhpat Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Harminder Pal Adv.

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 53 dated 29.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 10.10.2022.

 

Lakhpat Rai aged about 43 Year son of Sh. Ram Dhan, Resident of Sahibjada Jujhar Singh Nagar, Ward No.1, Samrala, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                              ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Samrala, District Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circular office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Senior Manager.                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,      1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. S.P. Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant namely Ram Dhan was holding savings bank account No.3466000100276832 with OP1. Being an account holder, Ram Dhan became a member of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna on 26.05.2015 vide policy No.346600000183. A sum of Rs.12/- per year was being deducted by OP1 from the account of the complainant as premium of the policy. The date of birth of Ram Dhan was 02.01.1949 in the consent cum declaration form and this was the reason he was made a member of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna. The complainant is the nominee/beneficiary of his father in the said scheme/policy. Ram Dhan died in a road accident on 04.01.2018. After the death of Ram Dhan, the complainant applied for the claim by filing claim form as he was entitled for a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of his father as per the terms and conditions of the policy. However, OP2 vide letter dated 28.03.2018 repudiated the claim stating that the age of Ram Dhan was not within the norms of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna. As a matter of fact, at the time of taking the pollilcy and death of Ram Dhan, he was below the age of 70 years. Moreover, once the premium was received by the Ops, they were bound to pay the claim as per the consent cum declaration form. Non-payment of the claim amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to release/pay the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and the amount be ordered to be paid along with interest @19% per annum.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the OPs, the accident insurance cover scheme was initially valid for one year and renewable from year to year subject to terms and conditions of the scheme. As per the terms and scope of the scheme, all the account holders in the age group of 18-70 years were entitled to join and become member of the scheme whereby the insurance cover of Rs.2,00,000/- was offered in case of death or disability of the member on account of the accident. The said scheme was operative and valid from 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2016 renewable on year to year basis by  giving consent for auto debit of premium of Rs.12/- which was to be debited before 31^st May of each year. The OP bank was the master insurance policy holder of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company. The Insurance cover was to terminate once the account holder attains the age of 70 years or he closes his account with the bank. The OPs have further pleaded that the father of the complainant became a member of the scheme on 26.05.2015 by submitting consent cum declaration form. The father of the complainant namely Ram Dhan in compliance of KYC norms of the OP bank, submitted Adhar card bearing No.647003382569 showing his date of birth as 01.01.1946. Due to inadvertence, the date of birth was recorded as 01.05.1946 in the records of the bank. Thus, the date of birth given in the consent cum declaration form which was 02.01.1949 was wrong and contrary to the Adhar card issued in the name of Ram Dhan. Therefore, as per the date of birth of Ram Dhan, the accidental death insurance cover was admissible only up to the age of 70 years i.e. 01.05.2016. Ram Dhan died on 09.01.2018 and at that time he was 72 years of age. Therefore, the insurance claim was not payable as deceased Ram Dhan has ceased to be a member of accidental insurance scheme upon attaining 70 years of age as on 01.05.2016 as per bank record. Thus, the claim has been rightly repudiated. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex. C10 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. OPA of Sh. Lokesh Meena, Branch Head of OP1 bank along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP7 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that once the declaration cum consent form was accepted by the OPs treating the age of Ram Dhan to be less than 70 years and once the premium in respect of the policy was accepted by the OPs continuously for a period of two years, the claim could not have been repudiated on the ground that the age of the deceased was more than 70 years at the time of his death. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has pointed out that in the ration card Ex. OP2, the age of Ram Dhan is mentioned as 62 years and on the basis of this document, the policy was voluntarily issued by the OPs. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the Adhar card cannot be formed the basis of repudiation of the claim as there could be an error in the Adhar card and the Adhar card is not a valid and conclusive proof of the age of a person. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon 2019(1) RCR (Civil) 847 in Smt. Parvati Kumari and others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy Home & others whereby the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (DB) has held that the information i.e. name, date of birth, gender and address as entered in the Adhar card is furnished by Aadhaar applicant at the time of enrolment and the said information is not authenticated by UIDAI and, therefore, the Aadhaar card cannot be a conclusive proof with regard to the entries made therein. In the light of what has been held in the cited case, it has been urged by the counsel for the complainant that the rejection of the claim on the basis of the entry in the Adhar card is liable to be set aside and the OPs are liable to be directed to pay the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy/scheme.

76.              On the contrary, the counsel for the OPs has argued that the claim has been rightly rejected by the OPs as Ram Dhan had himself submitted his Adhar card for making his account KYC compliant. Ram Dhan never claimed during his life time that the entries in the Adhar card in respect of his age submitted with the bank were not correct. Therefore, the bank has rightly relied upon the Adhar card to ascertain the age of Ram Dhan for the purpose of processing his insurance claim under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna.

8.                We have heard the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

9.                It is not disputed that Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna which was rolled out by the Central Government on 01.06.2015, provides that savings bank account holders in the age of 18-70 years will be covered for accidental death or disability on account of an accident.  As per Ex. OP3, which contains the detail of the scheme, all the savings bank account holders of age of 18-70 were to be covered in the policy. It is further mentioned in Ex. OP3 that the account holders could be eligible to join the scheme through one savings bank account only and the Adhar card would be the primary KYC document for the bank account. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that Ram Dhan himself submitted his Adhar card Ex. OP5 in which his date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1946. The counsel for OPs has further referred to Ex. OP6 which shows that on the basis of Adhar card, the date of birth of Ram Dhan was entered in the records of the bank and inadvertently, instead of 01.01.1046, the bank entered in its records, date of birth as 01.05.1946. Even if the date of birth of Ram Dhan is treated as 01.05.1946, he turned 70 years on 01.05.2016. Admittedly, Ram Dhan died on 04.01.2018 and at that time he must have been 72 years of age. It is evident from the policy/scheme details Ex. OP3 that the benefit under the policy were admissible to account holders only up to the age of 70 years. Therefore, in our considered view, the claim has been rightly repudiated by the OPs as Ram Dhan was beyond the age of 70 years when he died. Moreover, as per the details of the policy, the Adhar was the primary KYC document which was to be taken into consideration for determining the date of birth of the account holder.

10.              Much stress has been laid by the counsel for the complainant on the fact that once the proposal was accepted by the OPs and the premium of the policy was also received, it was not within the discretion of the OPs any longer to reject the claim on the ground that Ram Dhan was more than 70 years of age. It has also been contended by the counsel for the complainant that as per Ration card produced on record by the OPs themselves, Ram Dhan was less than 72 years of age. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that as per consent cum declaration form Ex. C1, date of birth of Ram Dhan is mentioned as 02.01.1949  which is accepted by the OPs. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the passport Ex. C9 wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 02.04.1949.

11.              We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the complainant but have found to same to be devoid of any force or substance. So far as the ration card Ex. OP2 is concerned, no date of birth of Ram Dhan is mentioned therein. Even otherwise, ration card cannot be said to be an authenticated proof of age of a person. No doubt, in the consent cum declaration form  Ex. C1, Ram Dhan entered his date of birth as 02.01.1949 but even the same does not match with the age given in his passport Ex. C9 wherein his date of birth is recorded as 02.04.1949. The complainant has further placed on record the driving licence Ex. C10 of Ram Dhan wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 12.05.1954. Thus, Ram Dhan has been giving different dates of birth to different authorities. The OPs are bound by the detailed terms and conditions of the scheme which are Ex. OP3 and Ex. OP4 wherein it is clearly mentioned that Adhar card would be the primary KYC document for the bank account which means that for the purposes of the policy as well as savings account, the date of birth mentioned in the Adhar card has to be taken as correct. Ram Dhan himself submitted the Adhar card with the OP Bank. After submitting Adhar card as one of the KYC document, Ram Dhan or after his death, his son the complainant never represented to the bank that the date of birth mentioned in the Adhar card is not correct. Neither Ram Dhan during his life time nor the complainant after death of Ram Dhan took any steps  to get the date of birth rectified in the Adhar card. Therefore, no fault can be found with the OPs if they acted upon and recorded date of birth of Ram Dhan on the basis of Adhar card which they were otherwise bound to do keeping in view the detailed terms and conditions of the insurance scheme floated by the Central Government. Apart from that, the complainant has not led any concrete evidence to clarify and explain as to how different dates of birth of Ram Dhan came to be mentioned in different documents and as to what exactly was the date of birth of Ram Dhan and on this ground, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant. In the given facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to the death claim of his father Ram Dhan as per the terms and conditions of  Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Lakhpat Rai Vs Punjab National Bank                                     CC/19/53

Present:       Sh. H.P. Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.