Haryana

Ambala

CC/40/2022

Veena Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Achint

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	40 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	07.02.2022
Date of decision	:	28.02.2024

Veena Aggarwal (Aged 65 years) widow of Narender Kumar R/o H.No.288/A, Sector-D, Defence colony, District- Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India, R.A. Bazar, Ambala Cantt.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantonment, Ambala

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Rakesh Kumar Achint, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 already ex parte.

                   Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(a)   To pay insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- covered under the policy i.e. Claim under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana.

(b)   To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(c)   To pay interest @ 12% on the amounts sought, from the date of accident i.e. 05.02.2020 till realization to the complainant.

(d)   To pay cost of litigation.

(e)   Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.           The facts in brief are that the complainant is the mother of Ankit Singla S/o Narinder Kumar who was having bank account no.10389029829 with OP No.1 and Ankit Singla had obtained a policy under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana. As such, yearly premium of Rs.12/- was deducted from the bank account of Ankit Singla every year since the date of inception of the policy. On 31.5.2019,  OP No.1  has deducted Rs.12/- from the account of Ankit Singla for renewal of Policy under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana under the bank reference no. SBISB05670201914845466032 valid for the period from 01.6.2019 to 31.5.2020.  Under the said policy complainant is nominated as nominee. Ankit Singla, the son of complainant died in an accident which took place on 05.02.2020 when he was returning alongwith the complainant from Topkhana to defence Colony on Activa no.HR85C 9750, when he reached near Baley Ka Nangla, Chungi, Defence Colony Road, Ambala. He received serious injuries resulting in his death. After the incident, complainant had intimated the OPs in the month of February 2020 and thereafter the employees of OP No.1 assured the complainant to help her in getting the insured amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana. Thereafter the complainant visited many times and requested the employees of OP No.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs. 2 Lakh covered under the policy.  Thereafter in the month of March 2020 due to the Pandemic Covid-19 and national wide lockdown the complainant was unable to approach OP No.1. The OP No.1 was also not entertaining anyone during that period. Thereafter, when in the month of May 2020 the complainant again visited the OP No.1 for the claim and requested to pay the insured amount of Rs.2 Lakh covered under the policy, they demanded some documents from the complainant, which were provided. OP No.1 allocated Claim no. 37020442158200000256 and assured that claim will be payable by OP No.2 within 2-3 months but to no avail.  Thereafter, employees of OP No.1 demanded Certificate of other bank account of Ankit Singla if any, that he was not enrolled under the PMSBY with that Bank. Upon that complainant approached Corporation Bank and obtained Certificate for non enrolment in PBSBY with that Bank and handed over the same to OP No.1  on 05.11.2020 but still claim amount was not paid.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2022.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version wherein it raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands as has suppressed the material facts so as to get the claim amount; the present complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit; the present complaint is not maintainable since the same has been filed without any cause of action etc. On merits, it has been stated that  the complainant has neither informed OP No.2 about the alleged death of her son Mr. Ankit Singla nor presented/produced her claim case through her alleged bank with which the son of deceased was having the alleged bank account and got alleged insurance cover under Pradhan Mantri Surakha Bima Yojana as alleged. There is a specific procedure for the entertainment and settlement of any claim by the insurance companies in order to keep check on any fraud and manipulation and also uniformity and thus has to be strictly followed by both the insured and the insurer whereby in case of any eventuality and loss, a written intimation alongwith claim form and other related papers has to be submitted with the concerned bank of the deceased, who after verifying the same has to submit the claim of the person concerned to the insurance company with its covering letter with all the complete details and papers related to the deceased person and only then a claim is registered and processed as per law. But in the present case, the complainant did not inform the bank of her deceased son about the alleged claim and consequently her alleged claim could not be registered and processed. Very strangely the claim form attached with the complaint bears the policy number of some earlier years thus cannot be expected to be filled by the bank of the deceased. Even a claim form should have been duly attested by the concerned bank with its seal and signatures but there is no such seal or signature of the concerned bank on any of the document attached with the complaint. It is also relevant to mention here that as per certificate attached with the complaint allegedly issued by the bank shows that the account of the deceased Ankit was not enrolled under the PMSBY that proves the case otherwise against the complainant even. Thus, this complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be rejected as per the provision contained under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Raman Chhabra, Sr. Divisional Manager and Authorized Signatory, National Insurance Co Ltd., Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-2/A and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the fact that the deceased was insured under the policy issued under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana as he was regular in making payment of premium through OP No.1-Bank, yet, by not paying the claim amount of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant being his nominee, the OPs are deficient in providing service and  adopted unfair trade practice.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that the complainant did not inform the bank of her deceased son about the alleged claim and consequently her alleged claim could not be registered and processed. He further submitted that claim form should have been duly attested by the concerned bank with its seal and signatures but there is no such seal or signature of the concerned bank on any of the document attached with the complaint.
9.           It may be stated here that the complainant has placed on record sufficient evidence in the shape of entries made in the pass book of the deceased, Annexure C-1 that the premium amount of Rs.12/- under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana had been regularly been paid and deducted by OP No.1-Bank. However, in the reply filed by OP No.2, it has been clearly stated that  the complainant did not inform the bank of her deceased son about the alleged claim and consequently her alleged claim could not be registered and processed. However, on the other hand, the complainant has very consistently stated that she has informed the OP No.1-Bank in the matter. To prove her case, she has placed on record the Consent-cum-Declaration Form dated 31.05.2019, Annexure-C-2; claim form, Annexure C-5, both issued by the OP No.1-Bank. However, both these documents have not been signed by any official of OP No.1-Bank. During arguments, counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that when the OP No.1-Bank had taken signatures of the complainant on the claim form, it was required of it to forward the same to OP No.2, for processing of claim amount, yet OP No.1 Bank miserably failed to do so and hence any fault of OP No.1 or OP No.2 will not disentitle the complainant for the insured amount.     
10.           It is significant to mention here that since material allegations were leveled by OP No.2 and also the complainant against OP No.1, as such, it was required of OP No.1 to controvert the same by placing on record any documentary evidence to prove that on receipt of respective premiums from the complainant, in each case, the same was forwarded to OP No.2- Insurance Company, but instead of proving its case, OP No.1 preferred not to contest this complaint and it was proceeded against ex parte as nobody put in appearance on its behalf, despite service.  As such, under these circumstances, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that OP No.1-Bank has nothing to say in its defence.  
11.           Under above circumstances, in our considered opinion, OP No.1 Bank was duty bound to forward the case of the complainant to OP No.2, which it failed to do. OP No.1-bank was thus deficient in providing service and negligent, thereby causing loss to the complainant, being nominee of the insured deceased.
12.           In this view of the matter, OP No.1-Bank is responsible for the negligence committed by it and is thus liable to pay the amount of Rs.2 lacs to the complainant. Since, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against OP No.2 is liable to dismissed.
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:-  

1. To pay Rs.2 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of death of deceased i.e. 05.02.2020 onwards.    
2. To pay Rs.3000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2000/-, as litigation expenses.

                   The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 28.02.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President