Order by

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       Sh.Sukhdev Singh and other, complainants  have filed the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that the Complainants are legal heirs of deceased namely Gurpreet Singh being his parents.  The Complainants allege that said Gurpreet Singh was having a saving account bearing No.20195895918 with Opposite Party. During his life time, on 22.2.2014 said Gurpreet Singh alognwith Complainant No.1 visited the office of Opposite Party No. 3 where the Bank Manager informed him that their bank is having tie up with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they introduced him a policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Bank Manager assured that in case of any mis-happening the insurance company will pay Rs.2 lacs to the legal heirs of Gurpreet Singh and the installment of said insurance company is only Rs.100/- per annum and the same should be deducted from the said bank account of Gurpreet Singh. As per the assurance of Bank Manager of Opposite Party No. 3, said Gurpreet Sigh had purchased policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.3 had deducted the amount of installment from the said bank account of Gurpreet Singh  on the same day and had also obtained the signatures of Gurpreet Singh on various papers and after that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 issued a letter to said Gurpreet Singh regarding his policy. After that, Opposite Party No. 3 used to deduct the amount of policy from the bank account of said Gurpreet Singh. On 25.03.2017 said Gurpreet Singh was on his duty as he was working under the private contractor of PSPCL and was doing his work at Khanna, District Ludhiana, then due to electric shock, said  Gurpreet Singh died and in this regard on the statement of Sukhdev Singh, a rapat No.22 dated 25.03.2017 P.S.Khanna was registered. The post mortem of dead body of Gurpreet Singh  was also conducted at PGI, Chandigarh. The Complainants further allege that after the death of Gurpreet Singh, the Complainants raised their claim with the Opposite Parties, but they refused to accept the claim of the Complainants by saying that due to some reason, the amount of installment was not deducted from the account of Gurpreet Singh, due to which his policy has already been expired.  The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. Opposite Parties  be directed to release the amount of claim i.e. Rs.2 lacs alognwith interest and also to pay Rs.75,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs.25,000/- to the Complainants on account of litigation expenses.

2.       After  the notice served  upon the Opposite Parties, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the C.P.Act and appropriate remedy, if any lies only in the Civil Court. Further, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as there is no branch office of replying Opposite Parties at Moga and no cause of action arose here at Moga.  The Complainants have concealed the fact that there was no coverage of deceased in insurance policy as on the date of loss i.e. 25.03.2017 because as no premium was paid to the replying Opposite Parties. As per the pass book produced by the Complainant, the last premium was paid on 23.2.2015. As per section 64 VB of Insurance Act, the insurer can not assume any risk unless advance premium is paid for insurance coverage. Even otherwise, it is the settled law that contract of insurance comes into being only when the premium is received  and consent is given by the insurance company, hence the Complainants are not the consumer of the replying Opposite Parties and no consideration is there for the alleged cause of action and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in preliminary objections. The insurance coverage was for one year against the payment of premium and insured had to get it renewed every year by payment of premium. In this case, the deceased did not pay the premium after 23.02.2015 and as per the pass book produced by the Complainants, the last premium was paid on 23.2.2015. However, Opposite Party No. 3 can deduct the premium only as per the consent and instructions of the insured/ account holder.    Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       Opposite Party No. 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  Opposite Party No.3 has tie up with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Any account holder intends to purchase group personal insurance accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 Insurance Company, then he can purchase the same  through the Opposite Party No. 3 being facilitator and Opposite Party No. 3 bank has no obligation towards settlement of claims under the said policy.  The agreement lies between insured and insurance i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The period of the above said group personal insurance policy is one year from the date of account debit transaction in the account of insured.  In the present case, saving bank account No.201958895918 opted to purchase  the above said insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 22.02.2014 and issued a debit voucher on 22.02.2014 for Rs.100/- in lieu of premium. Gurpreet Singh purchased the above said group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the period  of one year w.e.f. 22.2.2014 till 21.2.2015 for the sum insured of Rs.2 lacs. Said Gurpreet Singh again purchased said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 23.2.2015 for the next one year from 23.2.2015 till 22.2.2016 and filled up proposal form declaration and nomination on 23.2.2015 and issued debit voucher for Rs.100/- on 23.2.2015 in lieu of premium towards above said insurance policy dated 23.2.2015. On expiry of above said insurance policy on 22.02.2016 said Gurpreet Singh did not purchase the said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the next one year. Said Gurpreet Singh deceased was not insured after 22.2.2016 and at the time of death of said Gurpreet Singh on 25.03.2017 said Gurpreet Singh  was not insured  under the above said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2.  Hence, the claim of the Complainants is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No. 3. On merits, Opposite Party No. 3 took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.      

4.       In order to prove  their case, the complainants  tendered into evidence the  affidavit Ex.C1, copies of account statement Ex.C2 to Ex.C9, copy of Aadhaar card of  Gurpreet Singh Ex.C10, copy of pass book Ex.C11, copy of death report of Gupreet Singh Ex.C12,  copy of General Diary Detail registered by P.S.City, Khanna Ex.C13 and closed their evidence.

5.       On the other hand,   Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Jatindra Dhabri, Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Opposite Party No. 3  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Gurdev Singh, Branch Manager Ex.OP3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP3/2 to Ex.OP3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3.

 6.       We have heard ld.counsel for Opposite Parties, perused the written arguments placed on record by Opposite Party No. 3  and  we have gone through the documents placed  on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, none has put in appearance on behalf of the Complainants and hence we have perused the complaint as well as documents placed on record by the Complainant in support of their contentions.

8.       The case of the Complainants is that they are legal heirs of deceased Gurpreet Singh being his parents. The Complainants allege that said Gurpreet Singh was having a saving account bearing No.20195895918 with Opposite Party No.3, copy of the pass book is placed on record as Ex.C11. It is the case of the Complainants that during his life time on 22.2.2014 said Gurpreet Singh alognwith Complainant No.1 visited the office of Opposite Party No. 3 where the Bank Manager informed him that their bank is having tie up with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and they introduced him a policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Bank Manager assured that in case of any mis-happening the insurance company will pay Rs.2 lacs to the legal heirs of Gurpreet Singh and the installment of said insurance company is only Rs.100/- per annum and the same should be deducted from the said bank account of Gurpreet Singh. As per the assurance of Bank Manager of Opposite Party No. 3, said Gurpreet Sigh had purchased policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and Opposite Party No.3 had deducted the amount of installment from the said bank account of Gurpreet Singh  on the same day and had also obtained the signatures of Gurpreet Singh on various papers and after that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 issued a letter to said Gurpreet Singh regarding his policy. After that, Opposite Party No. 3 used to deduct the amount of policy from the bank account of said Gurpreet Singh. On 25.03.2017 said Gurpreet Singh was on his duty as he was working under the private contractor of PSPCL and was doing his work at Khanna, District Ludhiana, then due to electric shock, said  Gurpreet Singh died and in this regard on the statement of Sukhdev Singh, a rapat No.22 dated 25.03.2017 P.S.Khanna was registered. The post mortem of dead body of Gurpreet Singh  was also conducted at PGI, Chandigarh. The Complainants further allege that after the death of Gurpreet Singh, the Complainants raised their claim with the Opposite Parties, but they refused to accept the claim of the Complainants on the ground that  due to some reason, the amount of installment was not deducted from the account of Gurpreet Singh, due to which his policy has already expired.  The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one. To support their aforesaid contentions, the Complainants have tendered into evidence the duly sworn affidavit of Sukhdev Singh Ex.C1, copy of statement of account in which the deceased Gurpreet Singh was having saving bank account Ex.C2 to Ex.C9, copy of identity proof of deceased Gurpreet Singh insured i.e. Aadhar Card Ex.C10, copy of pass book Ex.C11, copy of death report Ex.C12 of Gurpreet Singh deceased, issued by Government Medical College & Hospital, Chandigarh, copy of DDR issued by P.S.City Khanna Ex.C13.    

9.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has refuted the aforesaid contentions of the Complainants on the ground that the Complainants have concealed the fact that there was no coverage of deceased in insurance policy as on the date of loss i.e. 25.03.2017 no premium was paid to the replying Opposite Parties. As per the pass book produced by the Complainant, the last premium was paid on 23.2.2015. As per section 64 VB of Insurance Act, the insurer can not assume any risk unless advance premium is paid for insurance coverage. Even otherwise, it is the settled law that contract of insurance comes into being only when the premium is received  and consent is given by the insurance company, hence the Complainants are not the consumer of the replying Opposite Parties and no consideration is there for the alleged cause of action and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.     Not only this, Opposite Party No. 3 also denied the averments of the Complainants on the ground that Opposite Party No.3 has tie up with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. If any account holder intends to purchase group personal insurance accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 Insurance Company, then he can purchase the same  through the Opposite Party No. 3 being facilitator and Opposite Party No. 3 bank has no obligation towards settlement of claims under the said policy.  The agreement lies between insured and insurance i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The period of the above said group personal insurance policy is one year from the date of account debit transaction in the account of insured.  In the present case, Gurpreet Singh who was having saving bank account No.201958895918 with them opted to purchase  the above said insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 22.02.2014 and issued a debit voucher on 22.02.2014 for Rs.100/- in lieu of premium. Gurpreet Singh purchased the above said group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the period  of one year w.e.f. 22.2.2014 till 21.2.2015 for the sum insured of Rs.2 lacs. Said Gurpreet Singh again purchased said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 23.2.2015 for the next one year from 23.2.2015 till 22.2.2016 and filled up proposal form declaration and nomination on 23.2.2015 and issued debit voucher for Rs.100/- on 23.2.2015 in lieu of premium towards above said insurance policy dated 23.2.2015. On expiry of above said insurance policy on 22.02.2016 said Gurpreet Singh did not purchase the said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the next one year. Said Gurpreet Singh deceased was not insured after 22.2.2016 and at the time of death of said Gurpreet Singh on 25.03.2017 said Gurpreet Singh  was not insured  under the above said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and hence, the claim of the Complainants is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No. 3.

11.     It is not the denial of the case that Gurpreet Singh son of the Complainants was having a  saving account bearing No.20195895918 with Opposite Party, copy of the pass book is placed on record as Ex.C11. It is also not disputed that  Opposite Party No.3 has tie up with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Moreover, if any account holder intends to purchase group personal insurance accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 Insurance Company, then he can purchase the same  through the Opposite Party No. 3 being facilitator and Opposite Party No. 3 bank has no obligation towards settlement of claims under the said policy.  The agreement lies between insured and insurance i.e. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The period of the above said group personal insurance policy is one year from the date of account debit transaction in the account of insured.  It is also not denied that in the present case, Gurpreet Singh saving bank account holder opted to purchase  the above said insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 22.02.2014 and issued a debit voucher on 22.02.2014 for Rs.100/- in lieu of premium.  It is also not disputed that said Gurpreet Singh purchased the above said group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the period  of one year w.e.f. 22.2.2014 till 21.2.2015 for the sum insured of Rs.2 lacs. Said Gurpreet Singh again purchased said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 23.2.2015 for the next one year from 23.2.2015 till 22.2.2016 and filled up proposal form declaration and nomination on 23.2.2015 and issued debit voucher for Rs.100/- on 23.2.2015 in lieu of premium towards above said insurance policy dated 23.2.2015.

12.     Perusal of the copy of  Account Statement of the Saving bank account No.20195895918 Ex.C2 issued by Opposite Party No.3, it is clear that  Opposite Party No.3 themselves debited Rs.100/- on 22.02.2014 on account of insurance premium  for purchase of group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 valid for the period of one year i.e. w.e.f. 22.2.2014 till 21.2.2015 for the sum insured of Rs.2 lacs. Not only this, Opposite Party No.3 themselves again debited Rs.100/- on account of insurance premium  for purchase of group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 valid for the period of one year i.e. from 23.2.2015 till 22.2.2016. As per the admission of Opposite Party No.3 in their written reply, said Gurpreet Singh also filled up proposal form declaration and nomination on 23.2.2015 in favour of their parents i.e. present complaints. But afterward, Opposite Party No.3 has not debited/ transferred the requisite amount of Rs.100/-  from the account of Gurpreet Singh now deceased, which is a great lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.3. Unfortunately, after that i.e. on 25.3.2017 said Gurpreet Singh died due to electrocution shock when he was working with a private contractor and  at the time of his death, said   Gurpreet Singh  was not insured  under the above said policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and due to that reason, now the old complainants could not get the survival benefits after the death of their young son.  It is normal practice that for the purchase of such group personal accident insurance policy, any account holder gives consent to get transfer the amount of Rs.100/- annually from his saving bank account once and thereafter, the bank has to get the money transferred from the account of account holder so that the accidental death of the account holder could be covered. But in the case in hand, Opposite Party No.3 has not deducted such meager amount of Rs.100/- per annum from the account of Gurpreet Singh, now deceased and now due to deficiency in service on the part of the officials of Opposite Party No.3, the old complainants  are wandering here and there for the redressal of their grievance.  During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 argued that since there was no sufficient balance in the account of Gurpreet Singh  after 22.02.2016 and due to this reason, they could not deduct the insurance premium from his account, but perusal of the account statement produced by the complaints Ex.C11 shows that till 25.12.2016 there was sufficient balance i.e. balance of Rs.585/- remains in the account of said Gurpreet Singh.  Moreover, as per the version of the  Opposite Party No.3, if the account holder has not opted for further period or remained kept mum, then it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.3 to get remember the account holder to get continue or discontinue permanently from said group insurance policy. But in this case, Opposite Party No.3 has not done so. It proves that the officials of Opposite Party No.3 forgotten to deduct the premium amount from the account of said Gurpreet Singh and due to this lapse on the part of the officials of the Opposite Party No.3, now the complainants are suffering. It is not disputed that Gurpreet Singh deceased was insured for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- since the date of first premium paid.  Hence, we are of the view that there is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties who did not bother to deduct/ transfer the annual  premium amount of Rs.100/- under the scheme of group personal accident insurance policy of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 for the sum insured of Rs.2 lacs from the account of Gurpreet Singh, now deceased saving bank account holder and we pass the order accordingly. 

13.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 3 has to make good the loss suffered by the Complainants (old senior citizens) as the loss is caused due to the carelessness and negligence of Opposite Party No. 3. Had Opposite Party No. 3 performed its duty carefully, the Complainants should be entitled to insured amount of Rs.two lacs. So, Opposite Party No. 3 is  directed to pay an insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 27.09.2017 till its realization. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stands dismissed. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No. 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainants shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

14.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Forum since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Forum is doing additional duty at District Consumer Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib and Administration Duty at District Consumer Forum, Sangrur. There are only two working days in a week when the quorum of this Forum remains complete.  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 28.06.2019.       

(Parampal Kaur)                      (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                           Member                                       President