Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/146

Prabha Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sutlej Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Gupta

10 May 2022

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               146 of 2020

Date of Institution:     21.09.2020

Date of Decision :       10.05.2022

 

Prabha Sharma, aged about 38 years, wife of late Sh Anup Kumar alias Anup Sharma, son of late Imna Dutt Sharma, residing as a tenant as c/o Baldev Raj, Street No. 3 (R), Dogar Basti, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. The Sutlej Gramin Bank, Faridkot now, Punjab Grahmin Bank, Faridkot, through its Manager, Mall Road, Faridkot.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot.
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Ladhowal Road, Partap Bagh, Central Town, Jallandhar.

....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

cc no.146 of 2020

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                   Sh Jaskaran Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,    

                  Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of Rs.2 lakhs on account of insurance claim for death of her husband and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that, complainant and her husband had a joint saving account in the bank of OP-1 and during the subsistence of account, officials of bank apprised complainant and her husband regarding Pardhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yozna and said that yearly premium of Rs.330/-would be auto debited and amount debited

cc no.146 of 2020

would be sent to L.I.C. of India under Pardhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Bima Yojna and thereafter sent to Head Office of OP-1 at Kotkapura from where it would be further disbursed to OP-2 and OP-3. Even OP-1 got consent of complainant and her husband on printed form whereby bank was to auto debit the amount of Rs.330/-on account of said Insurance Policy. OP-1 debited the yearly insurance premium of Rs.330/- in 2018 and again also on 07.08.2019. thus, in this way, husband of complainant was insured with OPs. It is further submitted that husband of complainant died on 13.12.2019. Further submitted that complainant gave due intimation regarding death of her husband to OP-1 and applied for releasing the insurance amount of Rs.2 lacs. She also supplied requisite documents and OPs apprised that insurance amount is going to be disbursed to her account with OP-1. It is submitted that OPs never provided any  insurance document to her or her husband. Complainant approached OPs several times and made abundant requests to release the insurance claim, but all in vain, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and it has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for directions to OPs to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

cc no.146 of 2020

3                                      The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.09.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                     On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has unnecessarily dragged them in present litigation as insurance claim if any is to be paid by Insurance Company. However, it is admitted that complainant was insured under Pardhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yojna and OP-2 and 3 are the nodal agency to insure the account holder. Answering OP acted only as a collecting agent as per government instructions and has not earned any commission from such transactions and thus, complainant is not their consumer regarding debit entry of insurance amount. Further averred that OP-1 is not aware that why payment of insurance amount is not paid for Anup Sharma who was insured under the scheme by Op-2 and Op-3. However on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted the fact that complainant and her husband were apprised of Government Policy and benefits of policy and as per

cc no.146 of 2020

instructions of government, amount debited on account of insurance premium was duly remitted to OP-2 and Op-3 and as per instructions under the scheme, complainant is the consumer of OP-2 and OP-3. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 as on receipt of information regarding death of Anup Sharma from complainant, they immediately forwarded the required papers to OP-2 for necessary action  and thereafter, OP-1 was to simply credit the amount in the account of complainant after receiving the same from OP-2 and Op-3 and no more role was to be played by answering OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP as they have  sent the requisite papers to Op-2 and 3 and only after receipt of amount from them, the same shall be immediately credited to the account of complainant. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                   OP-2 and OP-3 also filed reply through counsel taking preliminary objections that deceased Anup Kumar was not insured with answering OPs at the relevant time and thus, no liability is attached to them. There is no relationship of consumer and service provider between deceased and answering OPs. Complaint filed by complainant is vague and does not disclose

cc no.146 of 2020

any cause of action and moreover, it involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence which is not permissible in the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, present complaint is filed only to extract public fund and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that PMJJBY scheme was initiated by government of India through Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance with effect from 01.06.2015  renewable from year to year with annual renewal date being first June of every year and as per scheme Rs. 2 lacs were to be given to individual account holders of participating bank between the age of 18 to 50 years who gave their consent to join and enable auto debit for enrolment into the scheme. In case of joint account holders, both the lives can be covered if they individually satisfy the eligibility criteria and premium in respect of both the members are deducted separately from the account and paid separately. It is further submitted that account no.13500738432 is a joint account in which complainant Prabha is primary account holder and deceased is second applicant. Name of nominee of complainant is Nitesh Kaushik and even premium is deducted only once instead of two times to cover the risk under said scheme. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2&3. However, on merits,

cc no.146 of 2020

they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                   Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed his evidence.

7                    In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwant Singh, Branch Incharge, Punjab Gramin Bank Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the evidence. ld Counsel for OP-2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Ramesh Kumar Manager, LIC, Divisional Office, Jallandhar Ex OP-2,3/1 and documents Ex OP-2,3/2 to Ex OP-2, 3/5 and also closed the evidence.

8                       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

9                    From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that she and her husband had a joint saving

cc no.146 of 2020

in the bank of OP-1 and as per Ex C-2, the husband of Prabha Sharma is the main account holder and OP-1 insured complainant and her husband under Pardhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Beema Yozna and also debited Rs.330/-as yearly premium. OP-1 debited the yearly insurance premium of Rs.330/- in 2018 and again also on 07.08.2019. There is no doubt that complainant and her husband were having joint account with OP-1 bank and they were both insured with OP-2 & 3 and this fact is also admitted by OP-1 bank. After death of her husband, she duly intimated and supplied required documents to OP-1 for further processing the insurance claim. OP-1 again admitted this fact in written reply and submitted that they have done their part of duty by submitting the all documents to OP-2 & 3 and have also written letter to them for clearing her insurance claim. Grievance of the complainant is that despite completion of all formalities and submission of requisite documents, OPs have not made payment of genuine insurance claim on account of death of her husband. OPs paid no heed to requests of complainant. On the other hand OP-2 & 3 have been denying insurance on false grounds of terms and conditions that they never supplied to complainant or her husband during inception of said insurance policy.

cc no.146 of 2020

10                                     To prove the pleadings of complainant, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-3 that is copy of Death Certificate issued by Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, Punjab regarding death of Anup Sharma who died at Max Hospital, Bathinda. Ex C-4 is copy of claim form that was filled by complainant and OP-1 bank that shows that complainant was nominee for receiving the insurance claim. Careful perusal of Ex C-2 that is copy of cover-note of bank passbook, clears the point that both complainant and her deceased husband were having joint account with OP-1 bank with Anup Sharma as first account holder or main holder. Ex C-5 is copy of Discharge Receipt for Payment Under Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana Scheme submitted by complainant Prabha Sharma, who is nominee to receive the insurance claim. Careful perusal of document Ex Op-2, 3 /4 which is copy of letter dated 18.03.2020 issued by OP-1 bank to Life Insurance of India intimating that complainant is first holder or main holder in account with a request to settle the claim of complainant. Insurance Company never supplied any policy document or Policy terms and conditions to complainant or her deceased husband and now, after having received the premium for long period,

 

cc no.146 of 2020

they cannot escape their liability to pay insurance claim which is genuine on false terms and conditions that were never disclosed or supplied.

11                                  It is noticed that OP-1 has admitted in para no. 2 of written statement that complainant and her husband have joint account in their bank and title of the account is Anup Sharma and Prabha Sharma which is also clear from the copy of cover note of  bank passbook Ex C-2, but in the letter Ex OP-2, 3 /4 written by OP-1 to Life Insurance of India, they have mentioned that Prabha Sharma is first account holder or main holder in account and Anoop Kumar is second holder. On the one hand, OP-1 is admitting the title of account Anoop Kumar and Parbha Sharma while on the other hand, OP-1 is mentioning Anoop Kumar as second holder of said account. Therefore, we can not rely merely upon the statement of OP-1 that Anoop Kumar is second holder. Further noticed that neither OP-1 Bank nor Insurance Company ever issued any Policy document or Policy terms and conditions to complainant nor have they placed on record any such relevant document at the time of filing written version, at the stage of evidence or during the hearing on arguments. Ops cannot deprive the complainant of the benefit of insurance claim for which she is fully entitled on the ground which they themselves have failed to prove. Complainant has

cc no.146 of 2020

produced cogent and vital documents to prove her case. Evidence produced by complainant is fully authentic and is beyond any doubt.

12                                          From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by parties respectively, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3 in not clearing the genuine claim of complainant on false grounds. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3 and they are directed to make payment of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate of 4% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization on account of death of Anup Kumar who was insured under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna with them.  OP-2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1  stands hereby dismissed as they have done their duty of lodging the claim of complainant with OP-2 and 3 and even it has no role in making payment of

 

cc no.146 of 2020

insurance claim. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 10.05.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member

 

 

                                                                                                   cc no.146 of 2020

Prabha Sharma    Vs     Sutlej Gramin Bank & others

 

Present:      Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                   Sh Jaskaran Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,    

                  Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and OP-3.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3 and stands dismissed against OP-1.Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 10.05.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member