Orissa

StateCommission

A/552/2017

The Branch Manger, Federal Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Basanta Manjari Sahu - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. M.K. Mishra & Assoc.

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

                Heard the learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                  The case of    the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant’s husband  is a Savings Bank Account holder  under OP  No.2-Bank. The complainant alleged inter-alia that Rs.12/- was debited to the account of her husband as premium under “Pradhan Mantri Surakshaya Bima Yojana” on 19.08.2015   although complainant allegedly has opened the account in 2015. The complainant further alleged that her husband had already been issued the  acknowledgement-cum- insurance certificate on  26.05.2015  but  husband of the complainant died on 19.07.2015 due to electric shock. Since, the claim is not settled inspite of application of complainant, the complaint was filed.

4.          The OP No.1  filed written version stating that  the complaint is not maintainable under the Act. A person if under the PMSBY scheme dies within one year   from the date of  enrollment, he  is  entitled to the sum assured from the insurance company, as such  in the instant case Rs.12/-  has been debited from her S/B account on 19.08.2015  whereas the policy holder died on 19.07.2015. He submitted that the complainant  was not covered under the policy, rightly they have repudiated the claim. They submitted that the written version has been filed separately   where they have alleged  about suppression of material fact.

5.               According to OP No.2  the policy holder did not submit the KYC  and thereby delay in debiting Rs.12/- from his account occurred. OP No.2 further averred that the amount of Rs.12/- being debited on 19.08.2015 but the policy holder died on 19.07.2015  for the which the  complainant is not entitled to the insurance claim. The OP No.2 also averred that  Rs.12/- has been debited after the death of the policy holder erroneously or inadvertently,  then  under the  scheme the nominee is not entitled to any compensation on this score. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

6.        After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The consumer case is allowed on contest against the Ops with cost. The OP No.2-Bank is directed to pay the required total eligible Insurance amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana scheme to the complainant  alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of order till realization. The complainant is also at liberty  to realize the same from the Ops as per Law, in case of failure by the Ops to comply the order.”

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has  not understood the fact and law  allowed the complaint. They have directed the appellant erroneously to pay any other insurance amount under PMSGY scheme and further to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. When the complainant  is duty bound to submit KYC and it was not submitted the bank could not keep the account active and as such the account became  dormant. Learned District Forum ought  to have   considered such fact. Learned District Forum has committed error in law by allowing compensation payable  by the appellant without considering the fact that  Rs.12/- only debited from his account after death of the policy holder which is covered under the scheme.  Learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the scheme  wherein the compensation would  be available only if the premium has been debited  during  life time of the insurer. However, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.               Learned counsel for the insurer-OP submitted that there is no direction against them and there is nothing to consider  the fact due to  non-receipt of the premium they have not settled the insurance  claim.

9.               Considered the submission of the learned counsel for respective parties , perused the DFR and impugned order .

10.               It is admitted fact that the insurer-policy holder is a account holder under the appellant-Bank. It is not in dispute  that Rs.12/- has been deducted from his account  payable as premium on 19.08.2015. It is also not in dispute that the policy holder died due to electric shock on 19.08.2015. The complainant  has proved the  acknowledgement-cum- insurance certificate dtd.26.08.2015 issued by the bank which is issued  before the death of the insurer. The only plea taken by the appellant that due to non-submission of KYC  by the complainant they have kept the account dormant. In this regard the OP No.2 has not filed any document asking the account holder to submit KYC. Moreover, the written version is silent as to when they received  the KYC of the complainant   of her husband to make it active, so that Rs.12/-  has been debited on 19.08.2015. On otherhand the Op No.2 has failed to prove their plea to defeat the claim of the complainant. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the Op No.2 has not  taken any steps to keep the account active and to facilitate  to policy holder  to get the benefit of  the scheme which is meant for the poor people to get the benefit against  payment of paltry premium amount.

                   In view of above discussion, we have gone through the impugned order and found no error in the finding of the learned District Forum. When the complainant being nominee is deprived  of getting compensation, the entire compensation amount to which the  policy holder is  entitled must be payable by the OP-Bank  to complainant towards  removing deficiency in service U/S-14 of the Act. Therefore, we confirmed the impugned order and appeal being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                              DFR be sent back forthwith.