BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 56 of 2020
Date of Institution : 04.02.2020
Date of Decision : 06.06.2024.
Sumitra aged 39 years wife of late Shri Rajveer son of Shri Ram Partap, resident of V.P.O. Nagoki, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Alikan, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR……..…PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………. …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Suresh Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. G.K. Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment u/s 35 of C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that husband of complainant namely Rajvir had died on 10.06.2019 at his village and as per guidelines of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna which commenced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the op bank being banker of deceased husband of complainant provided insurance cover under the scheme by deducting premium of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- on 09.03.2018 from his saving account No. 81640100457190 as a mandate under the scheme PMJJBY and PMSBY and copy of bank pass book issued by op bank clearly suggests deduction of amount of premium qua insurance. It is further averred that Govt. of India in order to provide social security to its citizens while enacting the scheme and framing its rules made banker of account holder duty bound to deduct the premium through auto debit facility on or before 31st May of each annual coverage period but despite availability of amount lying deposited in the saving account of Rajveer on the relevant date i.e. on 16.05.2019 the op bank had not debited premium amount of Rs.330/- for the year 2019-2020 which is gross negligence on the part of op and amounts to deficiency in service. That due to non deduction of premium/ renewal of policy, complainant is deprived from getting the benefits of the policy as her husband died on 10.06.2019 and thus op bank becomes solely liable to compensate the complainant with the benefits of insurance scheme on account of death of account holder of the bank. It is further averred that complainant approached the op bank time and again to get redressed her grievances but official concerned did not take the matter in sensible manner and turned down her request on the flimsy ground that bank is not at fault and the act and conduct of op comes under the ambit of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to release the amount of insurance of Rs. two lacs to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op bank appeared and filed written version submitting therein that as per guidelines of the said scheme, the installment of premium of Rs.330/- was to be deducted from the account of policy holder w.e.f. 25 May to 31 May every year for which the husband of complainant was equally duty bound to keep sufficient balance in his account to meet the amount of premium of Rs.330/- to enable the op to deduct the same from his account but for the period 25.05.2018 to 31.05.2018 the credit balance in his account was Rs.147/- only during which the installment of Rs.330/- was to be deducted, hence, it is wrong to say that op has committed any negligence on its part. Rather the account holder himself failed to enable the computer system of his banker to auto deduct the installment of his insurance premium by not keeping the necessary balance in his account to keep his policy survived, which fact automatically exonerates the op from any responsibility as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that complainant is deprived of the benefits of the policy due to non deduction of premium or non renewal of the policy, rather the complainant is deprived of this benefit due to the fact that account holder did not keep sufficient balance in his account to meet the amount of premium of Rs.330/- at the material time and so called loss to the complainant is caused due to the reason that account holder failed to maintain his account as per requirement of the policy. It is further submitted that as and when complainant visited the branch it was always explained to her in detail the above said mistake of her husband, hence complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. The fact remains that complainant is entitled to the benefits of the policy up to the extent to which the policy holder paid the installments of his policy regularly i.e. Rs.12/- per year. It is further submitted that loss caused to complainant, if any is due to act and conduct of account holder and not due to act of op as the op is not capable to change the terms and conditions of the policy circulated by the Controllers of the op to all the branch offices vide their Financial Inclusion Division Circular No. 07/2015 dated 30.04.2015, thus complainant is not entitled for insurance claim from op against insurance premium of Rs.330/- which has not been paid by policy holder due to his own fault/ negligence. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Annexures E and F.
5. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Ms. Arpana Arora, Branch Manager as Ex. RW1/A and statement of account Ex.RA.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
7. There is no dispute of the fact that on 09.03.2018, amount of Rs.330/- was deducted from the account of husband of complainant as premium for Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) by op bank as per consent of the husband of complainant Sh. Rajveer Singh now deceased as is evident from statement of account as all savings bank account holders in the age 18 to 50 years in participating banks were to be insured under the policy for benefit of Rs. two lakh in case of death due to any reason. The premium was to be deducted from the account holder’s savings bank account through ‘auto debit’ facility in one installment, as per the option given, on or before 31st May of each annual coverage period under the scheme and according to the scheme the delayed enrollment for prospective cover after 31st May will be possible with full payment of annual premium and submission of a self certificate of good health. It is also evident from statement of account of husband of complainant that on 09.03.2018 an amount of Rs.12/- as premium for insurance scheme namely Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY) was also deducted from the account of husband of complainant whereby the people in the age group of 18 to 70 years were to be covered for accidental death. According to complainant her husband expired on 10.06.2019 but as the bank had not deducted premium amount of Rs.330/- for the year 2019-2020, therefore, she is entitled to sum insured amount of Rs. two lakhs under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) from the op bank.
8. In the present case, the premium amount of Rs.330/- was deducted by op bank on 09.03.2018 under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) as per consent of the husband of complainant and policy for the said year was to be expired on 31.05.2018 and as such for renewal of the policy next premium amount for the period 2018-2019 was to be deducted after 25th May and not later than 1st June of 2018 for the renewal of the policy in question. But the policy in question of husband of complainant expired on 31.05.2018 and there was no sufficient amount in his account from 25.05.2018 to 01.06.2018 to deposit further installment for the period 31.05.2018 to 31.05.2019 and policy was lapsed and husband of complainant died on 10.06.2019 after expiry of 13 months of expiry of policy and grace period is not available to the bank and it is available to insured subject to further continuance of his policy after furnishing his good health certificate before bank to further continue and renewal of his policy. In the present case husband of complainant neither produced any certificate of his good health nor applied for renewal of his policy before 30.06.2018 for his insurance for 31.05.2018 to 31.05.2019, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable against the bank as well as insurance company though LIC has not been impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that husband of complainant deposited amount of Rs.1500/- in his account on 21.06.2018 i.e. within grace period of one month but despite that op bank had not deducted the premium and as such op bank is deficient in service and is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant for the death of her husband and has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in case titled as Smt. Arit Nanda etc. versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, FA No. 1155 of 2009 decide don 30.08.2013. However, we do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for complainant and the judgment relied upon by him is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because as discussed above husband of complainant neither produced any self certificate of his good health as per policy nor applied for renewal of his policy before 30.06.2018 and the complaint deserves dismissal.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 06.06.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
