Haryana

Karnal

CC/90/2019

Indro Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Rana

08 Dec 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 90 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.21.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 08.12.2020

 

 

Indro Devi, age 52 years wife of late Shri Karan Singh son of Shri Tara Chand, resident of Jarifabad Manjoora, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, near Ghanta Ghar Chowk, G.T. Road Karnal.

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office 489, Jiwan Parkash building Unit-1, Model Town, Karnal through its Manager insurer of the deceased Karan Singh vide policy no.90010008.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri Sanjay Rana counsel  for complainant.

                Shri Brijesh Sharma counsel for OP no.1.

                Shri Deepak Singh Dhull counsel for OP no.2.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that husband of complainant namely Shri Karan Singh (since deceased) son of Shri Tara Chand opened an account with branch of opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as “OP no.1”), bearing account no.00362011001286. Husband of complainant obtained policy as per Central Government Policy under the Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Bima Yojna and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna. An amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- were deducted on 20.06.2015 by the OP no.1 from the account of husband of complainant for the abovesaid policies respectively. Similarly, on 27.05.2016 and 30.05.2016 abovesaid policies were renewed by deducting the premium. Husband of complainant expired on 26.08.2016. Thereafter, complainant being nominee visited the office of OP no.1 so many times and requested for releasing the insurance amount under the abovesaid policy but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 15.02.2018 through her counsel in this regard but it also did not yield any result.

2.             Thereafter, the complainant filed an application under section 2 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in which the OP no.1 disclosed the name of opposite party no.2 (hereinafter referred to as “OP no.2”) as insurer. OP no.1 appeared before the Hon’ble court but after availing several opportunities did not file the written statement just to linger on the matter and to get the limitation expire for filing the present complaint. Hence complainant is left with no other alternate but to file the present complaint.

 In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of both the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and suppression of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP no.2 on the ground of eligibility. As per scheme, a person is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- during the age of 18 to 70 years by deducting an amount of Rs.12/- from the account of the account holder. As per the said scheme the insured is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of accidental death only. As per the another scheme a person is entitled for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, during the age of 18 to 50 years by deducting an amount of Rs.330/- from the account of the account holder. It is further submitted that the account holder has submitted the Voter ID and Driving Licence at the time of opening of the account. The date of birth as per the driving licence is 15.03.1968 which indicates that the deceased was less than 50 years at the time of opening of the account. After the death when complainant submitted the claim alongwith Aadhaar card of the deceased (which is the only authentic proof as per the instructions of the Govt. of India) which shows that the deceased was more than 50 years as the date of birth was indicated as 01.01.1964. Hence the deceased was not entitled for the insurance claim. The act of the deceased was illegal as unwarranted as he has suppressed the true and material facts with regard to his age at the time of purchasing the policy. Hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP no.2 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.

4.             Further, that the complainant has already filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal and which is pending disposal. Therefore, the present complaint is an abuse on the process of law and is liable to be dismissed.

5.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for as the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna offers one year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible Saving Bank Account holders through Banks introduced as per CIR.No.P&GS/1369 dated 01.06.2015. The bank is acting as the Master Policy Holder who has entered into MOU with LIC and MPH is responsible for enrollment of members as per rules and eligibility criteria. The MPH must ensure age eligibility criteria for coverage, recovering premium through “Auto Debit” preserving the content-cum-declaration form i.e. enrollment form and remittance of premium to LIC.

Enrolment period: The initial enrolment period will be upto 31^st May, 2015 and last enrolment will be possible upto 31^st August, 2015 or upto any extended period as may be decided by Government by paying annual premium of Rs.330/- for uniform and fixed coverage of Rs.2 lakhs.

Period of Cover: The period of cover will be for one year commencing from 01.06.2015 and renewable every year with 1^st June as Annual Renewable Date.

Eligibility: All saving Bank Account holders in the age group 18 years (completed) and 50 years (age nearer birthday) as on 01.06.2015 or on the subsequent date of joining the scheme are eligible to join the Scheme.

Termination of Assurance: It must be noted that it will not be possible to enter into the scheme beyond the age of 50 years.

 Further, this complaint is not maintainable as per claim paper, age proof of Aadhaar card for KYC & death certificate submitted to the respondent by the complainant through M.P.H. Oriental Bank of Commerce, the date of birth of the deceased as per submitted age proof of Aadhar card is 01.01.1964, which is beyond permissible age of entry at the time of joining of scheme i.e.20.06.2015 is more than 50 years. Moreover, the age of the deceased mentioned in death certificate is 53 years which is issued by Government of Haryana, Department of Health Services, Community Health Centre, Jundla. Hence the claim is rejected as per term and conditions of the policy. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 i.e. Bank pass book Ex.C1, Account Statement Ex.C2, Death certificate of Karan Singh Ex.C3, School Certificate regarding date of birth Ex.C4, copy of ration card Ex.C5, Terms and conditions of policy Pardhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna Eligibility Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, terms and conditions of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna Ex.C9 and copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 28.08.2019.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence, affidavit of Sanjeev Purohit Branch Manager Ex.DW1/A, copy of Adhaar Card Ex.D1 and certified copy of Court Order Ex.D2 and closed the evidence on 03.03.2020.

8.             OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Puneet Kumar Manager (Legal & HPF) Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11 i.e. Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.04.2015 (7 pages) Ex.OP1, proposal form for PMJJBY (4 pages) Ex.OP3, consent-cum-declaration form (2 pages) Ex.OP4, Rules of scheme Section-1(3 pages) Ex.OP5, Claim forms Ex.OP6, Claim Form to Bank by complainant Ex.OP7, copy of Aadhar card of deceased Karan Singh Ex.OP8, Claim rejection letter dated 10.02.2017 Ex.OP9, Claim letter by Bank to LIC dated 24.11.2016 Ex.OP10 and Death Certificate Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on 28.11.2019.

9.             Complainant and OP no.2 placed on file written arguments on 27.11.2020.

10.           We have heard the learned counsel of all the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

11.           Learned counsel of complainant argued that husband of complainant obtained policy as per Central Government Policy under the Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Bima Yojna and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna by paying an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- respectively on 20.06.2015 through the OP no.1 from the saving account of husband of complainant. On 27.05.2016 and 30.05.2016, both the policies were  renewed by deducting the premium amount as stated above. He further argued that the complainant is nominee in the abovesaid account of her husband. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant expired on 26.08.2016. After the death of her husband, the complainant being nominee approached to the OPs and requested for releasing the benefits of the abovesaid Schemes but they failed to do so. He further argued that the date of birth mentioned in the school Certificate is best evidence and would prevail over all the documents with regard to ascertaining the date of birth of the deceased. He further argued that the plea taken by the OPs with regard to principle of res-judicata applies on the present case, has no force, as the complaint filed by the complainant before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal has already been withdrawn and same has not been decided on merits.  He further argued that the date of birth of deceased mentioned in the Aadhaar card is not correct.  He further argued that except age mentioned in the Aadhaar card, the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in other documents are correct. He further argued that he has placed on record written arguments and same may also be read the part of his arguments.

12.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1, argued that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as principle of res-judicata applies, because prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant had filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Service, Karnal and the complainant could not file two complaints before different Courts/Foras on the same cause of action between the same parties. The present complaint filed on 21.02.2019 and the complaint filed before the PLA has been withdrawn on 13.07.2019. He further argued that as per the  another (disputed) scheme, a person is entitled for claim of Rs.2,00,000/- during the age of 18 to 50 years by deducted an amount of Rs.330/- from the account of account holder. He further argued that at the time of obtaining scheme, account holder submitted voter ID and driving licence and as per DL his date of birth is 15.3.1968 which indicates that deceased was less than 50 years of age at that time. But after the death, when the complainant submitted the claim along with Aadhar Card which shows the date of birth of deceased was 01.01.1964, hence, at the time of obtaining the policy, the deceased was more than 50 years of age, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the benefits of the scheme. He further argued when the account of the deceased was opened in the bank, the obtaining of copy of Aadhaar Card was not mandatory and the OP had obtained driving licence and voter card to open the saving account of the deceased and it was the duty of the OP no.2 to verify the date of birth, at the time of auto deducting the premium from the account of husband of complainant. However, if any liability is made out, it is OP no.2 who is liable to pay the benefits of the policy to the complainant.

13.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 argued that the claim paper, age proof of Aadhaar Card for KYC & death certificate submitted to the OP No.2, by the complainant through MPH Oriental Bank of Commerce,  and as per submitted documents, the date of birth of the husband of complainant (deceased) was 01.01.1964 and at the time of joining of scheme on 20.06.2015, he was 51 years, 5 months, 19 days, so at the time of joining the scheme  he was more than 50 years. He further submitted that it was the duty of the OP no.1 to verify the date of birth of the deceased while taking his Aadhaar card at the time of opening of account of Karan Singh (since deceased). Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, if any liability is made out, then it is OP no.1 who is liable to pay the benefits of the policy to the complainant. Learned counsel for OP no.2 further submitted that he has placed on record written arguments and same may also be read the part of his arguments.

14.           After hearing the arguments and perusing the written arguments as well as the record, the following questions arise for consideration:-

(i)             Whether the principle of res-judicata applied in the present complaint or not?

(ii)            Whether the account holder Karan Singh (since deceased) was entitled for obtaining the benefit of the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna or not?  

15.           So far as the question whether the principle of res-judicata applied in the present complaint or not is concerned, it is observed that before filing the present complaint, the complainant had filed a complaint before Permanent Lok Adalat, Karnal and the same has been withdrawn, vide order dated 13.07.2019 (Ex.D2 after filing the present complaint. The complaint filed before Permanent Lok Adalat has not been decided on merits. In this regard, we are relying upon the judgment titled as Gollapinni Reddy balaprasad and another Versus Kota Venkataiah (died) per LRs and other 2018 (4) Civil Court Cases 781 (T&A).  Para no.20 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

“Whether, in no case, a decision under Order 22 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code, would operate as re-judicata between the same parties or their successor in interest or their privies, in subsequent proceedings, even when the concerned issue in the earlier proceedings had been decided by the Court on merits after affording fair and due opportunity to the contesting parties to lead evidence and of hearing.

                Hence, in view of the above observation, the principle of res-judicata is not applied on the present complaint as previous complaint has been withdrawn without heard on merits.

16.           So far as, the question with regard to that whether the account holder Karan Singh (since deceased) was entitled for obtaining the benefit of the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna or not is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the husband of complainant was having a saving account No.00362011001286 with OP No.1 and he has obtained Central Government policies under Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Bima Yojna and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna by deducting an amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.12/- respectively. It is also admitted there is no dispute regarding the policy of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna.

17.           As per Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana Rules, the eligibility for obtaining the scheme is that the person should have a saving bank account and should be aged between 18 years (completed) and 50 years (age nearer birthday) and who has given the consent to join the scheme during the enrolled period are eligible to join the scheme. Aadhaar Card would be the primary KYC for the bank account.

 18.          As per version of OP no.1, the husband of complainant was less than 50 years and was eligible for obtaining the scheme on the basis of Voter ID and Driving Licence as his date of birth was mentioned as 15.03.1968. The husband of complainant had died on 26.08.2016. As per Aadhaar card of her husband, his date of birth was mentioned as 01.01.1964, according to which, he was more than 50 years of age, at the time of obtaining the scheme.

19.           Further, as per School Certificate Ex.C4 of the deceased the date of birth of the husband of complainant is 01.02.1969, as per Aadhar card (Ex.D1/OP8) his date of birth is 01.01.1964 and as per voter ID and driving licence as alleged by OP no.1, his date of birth is 15.03.1968. There are three different date of births on record belonging to the deceased.

20.           As per School Certificate (Ex.C4) issued by Head Teacher, Government Public School Zarifabad, Karnal dated 28.11.2018, the date of birth of husband of complainant is 01.02.1969. On this point we are relying upon CRR no.767 of 2018, date of decision, 20.02.2019, titled Gajab Singh Versus State of Haryana (H&C), appeal no.1531 of 2011, titled as Shah Nawaz Versus State of UP and another, Mukhopadhya Versus Mohendra Lal Pathak (ILR 97 Cal.849) and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh in civil appeal no.1730 of 2005, decided on 14.03.2005 for determination of age of any person school records have more probative value than any other documents.

 21.          Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and ratio of the abovesaid judgments, it is very much clear that the School Certificate Ex.C4 is best evidence than Driving Licence and Aadhaar Card As per School Certificate the date of birth of husband of complainant was 01.02.1969 and the policy was obtained on 19.06.2016 and the deceased was less than 50 years of age at the time of obtaining the policy, Hence, the complainant is entitled to benefits of the scheme of Pradhan Mantri Jiwan Jyoti Bima Yojna.

22.           In the present case the OP no.1 is Bank where the account of the deceased was opened and through whom the aforesaid policy was obtained by the deceased as well deduction of premium of the aforesaid policy was deducted by OP no.1. The OP no.2 is the Life Insurance Corporation who has covered the life of deceased. Apparently, both OPs are blaming each other. As per the OP no.2 the Bank will act as the Master Policy Holder (MPH), who has entered into MOU with LIC and MHP is responsible for enrollment of members as per rules and eligibility criteria. The MPH must ensure age eligibility criteria for coverage, recovering premium through “Auto Debit” preserving the content-cum-declaration form i.e. enrollment form and remittance of premium to LIC. The OP no.1 neither produced the Voter ID or Driving Licence of the account holder (deceased) to prove his version. Further, OPs have failed to rebut the School Certificate. It will be the travesty, if the complainant is made to suffer for the deliberate inaction and negligence of the OPs. Thus, we are of the considered view that act of the both the OPs amounts to deficiency in service as it was duty of both the OPs to obtain the Aadhaar Card, if mandatory, as per terms and condition of the scheme, at the time of obtaining the policy by the deceased.

23.           In view of the abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for litigation expenses. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.12.2020                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

 

         (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                             Member