Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh............President.

The complainant has filed this case against the OPs under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection act 1986 and praying for the following orders/reliefs:

1. Direction against the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs. 200,000/- ( Two lakhs) only to the complainant towards of benefit of PMJJBY Scheme.
2. Direction against the OP’s to pay interest @ 10% per annum to the complainant on the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) only from the date of submission of claim.
3. Direction against the OP’s to the pay the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) only for mental agony, sufferings caused to the complainant on account of negligence & deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP’s.
4. Direction against the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) only to the complainant towards cost of the legal proceedings.
5. Any other order/orders which the complainant is entitled.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT.

1. The husband of the complainant namely Bapi Kundu during his life time enrolled himself in the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) Scheme, jointly offered by the OP No. 1 & 2.
2. That the husband of the complainant executed “Consent-Cum-Declaration Form” duly prescribed by the OP no. 1 & 2 and gave Consent to join the scheme and gave mandate to the OP no. 1 to recover annual premium through auto debit process on or before the due date from the savings bank account no. 34508390637 maintained with the OP no. 1.
3. That a sum of Rs. 330/- being premium was auto debited on 29.05.2015 by the OP no. 1 from the Bank Account of the husband of the complainant and the husband of the complainant became a member of the said scheme under the Master Policy Holder of OP no. 1.
4. That, as per the Rules of the scheme it was responsibility of the OP no. 1 as a participating Bank of the Scheme to recover the annual premium in one installment from the account holder on or before the due date through auto debit process.
5. That by virtue of the consent-cum-declaration from jointly prescribed by the OP no. 1 & 2 duly executed by the husband of the complainant OP no. 1 had been specifically authorised to make further deduction of annual premium of the scheme within 25^th May to 1^st June every year through auto debit process from the Bank Account.
6. That, on 21.12.2016 the husband of the complainant died leaving behind his wife (complainant), one minor son, one minor daughter.
7. That, the complainant being the Nominee of her husband submitted PMJJBY claim form along with required documents to the OP no. 1 on 12.02.2018 and requested to take proper steps.
8. That on 24.02.2018 the complainant received a letter from the Associate Vice President, Group Operation (PMJJBY) of the OP no. 2 wherefrom the Complainant came to know that, the OP no. 2 rejected her claim as they had not receive the premium due on 01.06.2016 for the said insurance cover and as a result insurance cover on the life of late Bapi Kundu was lapsed.
9. That, at that relevant point of time there was sufficient balance in the account of the insured (deceased) and as such there was no hindrance on the part of the OP no. 1 to recover the annual premium from the Bank Account through Auto debit.
10. That, despite having sufficient money in the account the OP no. 1 did not recover the annual premium from the said account for the reasons best known to the OP no. 1 and the OP no. 2 by taking unlawful advantage of carelessness and negligence of the OP no. 1 unlawfully rejected the claim of the complainant.
11. That, being dissatisfied with the decision of the OP no. 2 the complainant sent her representation to the OP no. 3 vide letter dated 05.04.2018 which was received by the OP no. 3 on 07.04.2018 but the OP no. 3 make no reply to the complainant.
12. That, the complainant is consumer and the OP’s being the service provider has failed to give proper service to the complainant. 
13. That the OP’s have acted arbitrarily why dealing with the claim of the complainant and the acts and conducts the OP’s caused mental hardship and anguish to the complainant in addition to her financial crunch.
14. That the negative conduct of the OP no. 1 frustrated the Govt. Scheme and due their careless, negligent and unlawful conduct amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
15. That the cause of action arose on 29.05.2015 when the husband of the complainant enrolled himself in the scheme and when annual premium for the said scheme was deducted from his account and on 21.12.2016 when her husband died and on 12.02.2018 when the complainant submitted the duly filled up PMJJBY- claim-Form to the OP no. 1 and on 24.02.2018 when the OP no. 2 rejected the claim of the complainant and on 05.04.2018 when the complainant sent her representation to the OP no. 3 against the decision of the OP no. 2 but did not get any reply.

Notice was sent to the OP’s and on receipt of notice the OP no. 1 , OP no. 2 and OP no. 3 have appeared before this commission, filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complainant. The OP no. 1 in their written version has stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and facts the complainant has no locus standi to file this case/the relief claimed by the complainant is beyond the scope of the consumer protection act as the complainant is not a consumer/the Complainant has filed this case on some false allegations/the husband of the complainant one day in the  month of may 2016 went to the Branch and informed the Bank that he was not willing to continue/renew the PMJJBY policy because his wife was going to start a fresh PMJJBY Policy through Union Bank, Deshbandhupara Branch/The husband of the complainant also requested the Bank that he was not giving any consent to continue PMJJBY through the OP no. 1. The OP no. 1 has also stated in the written version that, due to the request of the husband of the complainant as well as due to his representation the OP no. 1 did no debit the premium for the renewal of PMJJBY for the year 2016-2017 within 01.06.2016. By filing the written version the OP no. 1 praying for dismissal of this case.

The OP no. 2 & 3 in their written version have stated that, the complainant has filed this case on some false allegations and the husband of the complainant reported to have died on 21.12.2016 where the insurance cover lapsed on 01.06.2016 and as on the date of death of Bapi Kundu there was no insurance cover existing on  his life and the insurance cover granted to the deceased was terminated due to non-payment of renewal premium and on lapsation, the insurance cover ceased. They further stated that no cause of action had arisen on 29.05.2015, 21.12.2016, 12.02.2018, 24.02.2018 & 05.04.2018 for the complainant to file the instant case and the insurance cover granted to the deceased had ceased due to non-payment of renewal premium due on 01.06.2016 and there was no insurance cover existing on his life as on the date of his death and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the plaint, written version, documents filed by the parties the following points to be considered by this Commission.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of C.P. Act. ?
2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer under the provision of the C.P. Act. ?
3. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
5. Is the complainant has able to prove this case and entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

                                                DECISION WITH REASONS 

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In the written notes of argument and during oral argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant has stated that, the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP’s and the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. He also argued that, the complainant has proved her case not only through her written deposition but also by producing the documents the complainant has been able to prove her case. He also argued that, the complainant has been able to prove that her husband during his life time enrolled himself in the PMJJBY Scheme which was jointly offered by the OP no.1 & OP no. 2 and the husband of the complainant executed “consent cum- declaration from” duly prescribed by the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 and he gave consent to join the Scheme and gave mandate to the OP no. 1 to recover the annual premium through auto debit process on or before the due date from his savings Bank Account No. 34508390637 maintained with the OP no. 1. He also argued that the complainant has been able to prove the fact that a sum of Rs. 330/- being the annual premium of the scheme was auto debited on 29.05.2015 by the OP no. 1 from the Bank Account of the Insured      ( husband of the complainant) and husband of the complainant became a member of the scheme under the master policy holder OP no. 1. He also argued that as per Rule of the scheme it was responsibility of the OP no. 1 as a participating Bank of the Scheme to recover the appropriate annual premium in one installment from the account holder on or before the due date through auto debit process. He also argued that, the complainant has been able to prove the fact that, by virtue of the “consent- cum- declaration form” jointly prescribed by the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2 duly executed by the husband of the complainant the OP  no. 1 had been specifically authorized /empowered to make future deductions of annual premium of the scheme within 25^th may to 1^st June of every year through auto debit process. He further argued that, the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP’s and she is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Ld. Advocate of the OP no. 1 during argument submits that, the complainant has failed to prove the case against the OP no. 1 and she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. He further  argued that, the husband of the complainant one day in the month of May 2016 went to the Branch and informed the Bank that, he was not willing to continue/renew the PMJJBY policy because his wife is going to start a fresh PMJJBY policy through Union Bank Deshbandhupara Branch and the husband of the complainant also requested the Bank that he was not giving any consent further to continue PMJJBY through OP no. 1 and did not file any self certificate of good health before the OP no. 1 and as per request of the husband of the complainant the OP no. 1 did not debit the premium for the renewal of PMJJBY for the year 2016 – 2017 within 01.06.2016.

At the time of argument on behalf of the OP no. 2 and OP no. 3 Ld. Advocate submits that , they have filed written notes of argument and they have specifically stated that, the complainant has failed to prove her case against them and she is not entitled to get any relief. He further argued that, as per terms of the PMJJBY Scheme the condition was to renew the policy every year on the renewal premium of Rs. 330/- on the annual renewal date i.e. 1^st June of every year due on 01.06.2016 and for the year 2016 – 2017 the renewal premium was not received by the OP no. 2 and as the renewal premium due on 01.06.2016 was not received by the OP no. 2 insurance cover lapse with effect from 01.06.2016 and Bapi Kundu died on 21.12.2016 whereas the Insurance cover lapsed on 01.06.2016 and as such there was no insurance cover existing and the insurance cover granted to deceased was terminated due to non payment renewal premium and thereby the claim is not payable under the policy.

Having heard the Ld. Advocates of all the sides and on perusal of the plaint, written version, documents filed by the parties, evidence, written notes of argument of the parties it is admitted fact that, the husband of the complainant Bapi Kundu during his life time enrolled himself in the PMJJBY Scheme as the OP no. 1 & OP no. 2 jointly offered for the same.

It is also admitted fact by all the parties that, the husband of the complainant executed ‘consent – cum- declaration form’ duly prescribed by the OP no. 1 and OP no. 2.

It is also admitted fact by all the parties that, the husband of the complainant gave consent to join the PMJJBY Scheme and gave mandate to the OP no. 1 to recover the annual premium through auto debit process on or before the due date from his savings bank account no. 34508390637 maintained with the OP no. 1 Bank.

It is also admitted fact that, on amount of Rs. 330/- being annual premium of the scheme was auto debited on 29.05.2015 by the OP no. 1 Bank from the account of the insured Bapi Kundu.

It is also admitted fact that, as per the ‘consent-cum-declaration form’ it was the responsibility of the OP no. 1 as a participating Bank of the scheme to recover the appropriate annual premium in one installment from the account holder through auto debit process.

It is also fact that that husband of the complainant died on 21.12.2016 and the complainant being the nominee of her husband submitted duly filled up PMJJBY claim form along with required documents to the OP no. 1 on 12.02.2018.

In the case in hand the OP no. 2 & 3 in their written version, written notes of argument have stated that, Bapi Kundu was Insured under PMJJBY Scheme under master policy no. 76001000135 for the period 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2016 but his policy was not renewed for the period 01.06.2016  - 31.05.2017 as the OP no. 2 & 3 did not receive premium of Bapi Kundu. But the OP no. 1 in his written version, written notes of argument admits that, savings a/c no. 34508300637 was maintained with the OP no. 1 Bank and the OP no. 1 Bank did not recover the premium from the account of Bapi Kundu and the OP no. 1 claims as if that, the husband of the complainant had requested the Bank orally for making no further deduction of premium as his wife was going to have a fresh policy. In this regard it is needless to mention here that, the Bank authority (OP no. 1) did not submit any document before this commission in support of their claim. On the other hand as per PMJJBY consent- cum-declaration form it is evident from the official website of the OP no. 1 that, there was no options to opt except to authorize the Bank to make future deduction within 25^th may to 1^st June every year towards renewal of coverage under the Scheme through auto debit process. In the case in hand it is not proved on the side of the OP no. 1 as to what prevented them from deducting the premium amount from the savings account of Bapi Kundu within the stipulated period since when at the relevant time i.e. 25.05.2016 to 01.06.2016 there was sufficient balance in the savings bank account of Bapi Kundu with the OP no. 1 Bank. That act of the OP no. 1 is nothing but to failure of the OP no. 1 to fulfill its responsibility under the Rules of PMJJBY Scheme and as such there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1 and such non deduction of premium from the savings account of Bapi Kundu happened due to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 is liable to pay the awarded amount to the complainant. OP no. 2 and OP no. 3 are not liable to pay any amount of money to the complainant. 

Hence, it is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That, the instant Consumer Case being in No. 62/2018 is hereby allowed on contest against the OP no. 1 but in part. 

The OP no. 1 State Bank of India, Siliguri Town Branch is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs rupees) only to the complainants along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of submission of claim form on 12.02.2018 towards the benefit of PMJJBY Scheme till making payment of the entire amount. 

The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) only to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, sufferings caused to the complainant on account of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no. 1.

The OP no. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) only to the complainant as litigation cost and OP no.  1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) only to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OP no. 1 is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which the complainant may file execution case as per law.

Let a copy of this final order be given to all the parties free of cost.