Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/47/2018

T.Subba Rao, S/o Late T.Venkata subba naidu and F/o late T.Jagadeesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

G.Subramanyam

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 02-07-2018                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: 26-07-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                                Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.47/2018

Between

1. Sri. T. Subba Rao (Aadhaar No. 8766 8048 7295),

Son of Late T. Venkatasubba Naidu and father of Late Talluru Jagadeesh,

Hindu, aged 67 years, Pensioner,

2. Smt. T. Ammulu (Aadhaar No. 8218 5814 3932),

Wife of Sri. T. Subba Rao and mother of Late Talluru Jagadeesh,

Hindu, aged 53 years, house-wife,

 

           Both are residing at Door No. 1-33/2,

           Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanur Road,

           Tirupati Town, Tirupati Rural Mandal,

           Chittoor District, A.P.                                                                 … Complainants

 

And

1. The Chief Manager,

Andhra Bank,

Tiruchanur Road Branch,

19-9-3/45, Tiruchanur Road,

TIRUPATI – 517501,

Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District – A.P.

 

2. M/s. India First Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

301, ‘B’ Wing, TRIL IT 4,

Infinity Park, Dindoshi – Film City Road,

Malad (East),

Mumbai – 400097.

 

3. The Ombudsman for Andhra Bank,

C/o. The Reserve Bank of India,

1^st Floor, D.No. 6-156, Secretariat Road,

Saifabad,

HYDERABAD – 500 004,

Telangana State.                                                                        … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.07.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Subramanyam, Sri.G.GuruPrasad, Miss.D.Sarada, counsels for the complainants, and Sri.A.Surendra Naidu, counsel for the opposite party No.1, Sri.C.Poorna Chand, counsel for the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is remained exparte having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest 18%  per annum from 16.07.2016 till the date of payment, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from 02.01.2017 till the date of payment towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and to pay costs of the complaint.

        2.The brief facts of the case are:  The complainants 1 and 2 who are husband and wife submits that, his son is having Andhra Bank Jeevan Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account bearing No.099110027001012 in first opposite party’s bank and the said account covers insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the premiums will be deducted from his savings bank account and the opposite party No.1 has been deducting premiums and insurance charges from the account of their son and at the time of opening the account, his son appointed his mother who is none other than complainant No.2 as a nominee for his account. The complainant further submits that on 07.11.2012 his son surrendered the A.T.M Card to the opposite party No.1 bank and requested them to cancel the ATM facility to his account and on the same day deposited Rs.500/- into his account. Even after surrendering the ATM card, the opposite party No.1 continuously deducted the ATM charges from the account of his son. The complainant further submits that his son died on 02.07.2016, and the first complainant submitted a letter to the opposite party No.1 dt: 16.07.2016 informing about the death of his son and requested to issue claim forms to him for submitting the claim of insurance policy which is covered under Andhra Bank Jeevan Abhaya Gold Scheme. The first complainant submits that the complainant No.2 is being nominee of SB account submitted her claim application along with necessary documents to opposite party No.1 for processing the claim. The complainant No.1 further submits that he sent an e-mail on 24.11.2016 to know about the status of the claim of the complainant No.2 and also sent the details of the claim to the opposite party No.2. On 26.11.2016 after receipt of the claim the opposite party No.2 sent a reply through e-mail on 28.11.2016 stating that the claim was rejected as the policy was in lapsed condition by the date of the death of the insured. Immediately after receipt of the above e-mail from opposite party No.2, the complainants approached opposite party No.1 bank and represented that their son in his lifetime surrendered the ATM card to the opposite party No.1 on 07.11.2012 and requested them to cancel the same, but in spite of it the first opposite party bank has deducted Rs.422/- till 05.07.2016 towards ATM Card annual charges from his account and also deducted Rs.1,131/- towards MB (Minimum Balance) charges from 24.03.2012 to 03.10.2016 from his son’s account. So in total the opposite party No.1 has deducted Rs.1,553/- unnecessarily from his son’s account, if the opposite party No.1 has not deducted the above said amount unnecessarily from his son’s account, there would have been sufficient balance to deduct the insurance premium of Rs.151/- from his account in November. Hence there is lapse of service by the first opposite party bank that,  since even after intimation, they have not cancelled the ATM card resulting in insufficient balance in deceased account.

         3. The complainant further stated that, even after death of his son the opposite party deducted premium of Rs.150/- on 28.11.2016 and the difference insurance premium amount of Rs.1/- on 30.11.2016 in total Rs.151/- from the account of their deceased son and later on 25.11.2017, the first opposite party deducted Rs.155/- towards insurance premium from the SB account of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh. So, the insurance policy was in force as on 02.07.2016 till 30.11.2018 as the latest premium for the said insurance policy was deducted by the first opposite party from the bank account on 25.11.2017. The complainant further submits that, they requested the opposite party    No.1 and 2 to pay the policy amount. But they failed to pay the same which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of them. Hence the complainant sent a legal notice on 02.01.2017 to the opposite parties calling upon them to pay insurance amount with interest. After receipt of the same, the first opposite party sent reply on 30.01.2017 and the second opposite party sent a reply on 25.01.2017 with false allegations. The complainant further submits that the third opposite party the ombudsman of Andhra Bank is a necessary and proper party for proper adjudication of this case, hence they have added them as a party. Hence the opposite party 1 and 2 failed to pay the insurance amount even after several requests made by the complainants which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of them hence they filed the present complaint.

        4. Opposite party No.1 filed the written version by admitting that, the complainant’s son is having savings bank account in Andhra Bank bearing No. 099110027001012, that the mother T.Ammulu who is the second complainant in this case is the nominee and the said account was opened on 25.08.2008 under Andhra Bank Jeevan Abhaya Gold Scheme and this account was linked to the insurance coverage. The insurance calendar year starts from 1^st December to 30^th November or 1^st July to 30^th June.( the period of the insurance year). The opposite party No.1 further stated that, they have tied with the second opposite party and this opposite party is only a facilitator to collect the premium and transfer the amount to the second opposite party towards the insurance premium to their customers. It is provided only for the benefit of the customers to give better services and good opportunities for customers and for providing this service the opposite party collects service charges only. The opposite party No.1 further stated that, all the insurance linked accounts should maintain minimum balance not less than Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly this opposite party collected the insurance premium from the account of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh for the year 2008-2009  and thereafter Rs.238/- was collected towards the insurance premium on 29.11.2008 and on the same day this opposite party collected insurance charges of Rs.45/-, for the year 2009-2010. Insurance premium of Rs.238/- was collected on 30.11.2009 and insurance charges of Rs.44/- collected for the year 2010-2011. Similarly insurance premium of Rs.235/- was collected on 30.11.2010  along with insurance charges of Rs.44/-. Further, for the year 2011-2012 on 26.11.2011 a sum of Rs.227/- was collected for premium along with Rs.44/- for insurance charges. For the year 2012-2013 insurance premium of Rs. 193/- was collected on 30.11.2013 and then onwards the opposite party did not collect the insurance charges. Further, for the year 2013-2014 insurance premium of Rs.158/- was collected on 29.11.2014 and after deducting  the insurance amount, the account holder was having in his account only a sum of Rs.326/-. Later this account balance remained zero as on 28.06.2015. Thereafter no premium was collected due to lack of amount in the deceased SB account.

         5. This opposite party further submits that, as per the statement of account every year from the date of the opening, the opposite party gave proper service by collecting  the insurance premium and paying the same to the second opposite party as long as  sufficient balance of amount is maintained in his account. But, in the month of November itself there was no balance to deduct of towards premium as there was zero balance in the statement of account. Regularly, the branch has deducted the insurance premium in the month of November in between 26^th to 30^th of every calendar year particularly for this account and during the period of 2015-2016 there was no balance to deduct and pay to the insurance premium. It is clearly shown in the statement of account, there was no balance from 10.09.2015 to 26.06.2016. Subsequently, on 27.06.2016 the deceased deposited a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Normally, all the charges are generated through the system only but not manually. As per the guidelines of the RBI, this opposite party performed their duties. This opposite party has tie-up with second opposite party being insurance company and the second opposite party performed their duties as per the guidelines of Insurance Regulatory Authority.

        6. The opposite party further submits that in the legal notice, the complainant stated that ATM card was surrendered to their branch on 07.11.2012 requesting to cancel the same and not to deduct the ATM card charges from his account and in spite of this opposite party collected a sum of Rs.242/- up to 15.07.2016 towards ATM card annual charges from his account. Further, a sum of Rs.1,131/- was collected towards for not  maintaining minimum balance charges from 24.03.2012 to 30.11.2016 in his account. In total this opposite party collected Rs.1,583/- unnecessarily from his account or otherwise there would have been is sufficient amount to deduct the insurance premium of Rs.151/- for the year 2015-2016. It is stated that the allegations are concocted  in order to create litigation and to get wrongful gain from this opposite party. The opposite party is a Government Sector Bank. All the amounts belongs to general public and the bank acts as the custodian of the public money. The opposite party further submits that, they have collected the charges as per the guidelines of Government of India and the RBI from the account of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh. As such, each and every transaction and each and every deduction has been clearly reflected in the statement of account and in pass book. The deceased account holder during his life time got entered all the entries in his pass book and he never asked regarding the ATM charges and minimum balance and other charges levied by this opposite party. He never asked this opposite party about the ATM card charges though he surrendered the same during his life time and never gave written complaint to this opposite party. The opposite party No.1 further stated that, after the demise of the account holder, this opposite party deducted insurance premium on 28.11.2016 a sum of Rs.150/- and on 25.11.2017 a sum of Rs.155/-. This insurance premium was deducted digitally as programmed in the system as per the request of the deceased in his life time and it would be terminated on the request of the account holder only or upon the request of the nominee of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh. But in this case till today the nominees of the deceased was neither given any written complaint nor tried to close the account. So, this opposite party has no right to cancel or close the account without the customer’s request or upon the request of its nominee. Hence, when the account was in force, automatically all the charges will be deducted by the system itself. As such, this opposite party has not collected the premium for the year 2015-2016 due to non-availability of balance in the account of the deceased. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of this opposite party as they have performed their duties as per the guidelines of RBI.

        7. The opposite party No.2 filed the written version by denying the contentions made in the complaint and further submitted that they have issued policy under master policy in the name of T. Jagadeesh on receiving duly filled and signed membership form in the name of life assured along with Direct Debit mandate and first premium for the policy year from01.12.2011 to 30.11.2012. Further the said policy was renewed by payment of premium in 2012, 2013 and 2014 through Direct Debit from the bank account of the life assured and life assured was duly covered up to 30.11.2015. Thereafter next premium due on 01.12.2015 was not received through Direct Debit since the transaction was declined on account of “insufficient balance” in the account of the life assured. Thus subject policy was not reissued for the year 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2016, hence the policy was not covered for the said period. Hence as per “Premiums” Clause (6) of certificate of insurance, subject policy was cancelled on account of non-payment of premium. The death of life assured occurred on 02.07.2016 which was in the policy period of 01.12.2015-30.11.2016 for which premium was not paid. Thus the life assured was not covered under the policy, hence there is no liability of insurance company during the said period, hence they have repudiated the said claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that they have acted as per the mandate given to the life assured in the certificate of insurance and issued insurance policy and took all decisions in conformity of insurance terms and conditions which is concluded contract between the insurance company and life assured. And also further stated that it is the settled law that the insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted, hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them as there is no breach on part of the insurance company hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party No.2 further stated that, the life assured had received the certificate of insurance and was very well aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants failed to produce any evidence on record , that there is deficiency in service on their part and the complainant filed the present case in order to get wrongful gain with malafide intention. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

         8. The opposite party No.2 further stated that, they have not received the premium for subject policy due on 01.12.2015 through Direct Debit Plan due to insufficient balance in the bank account of life assured and as per Clause (6) of certificate of insurance life assured had a grace period of 30 days from due that date. However no premium was received. Hence, as per the said clause itself subject policy lapsed with effect from 01.12.2015, that the master policy holder will receive the death benefit after deducting the premium due for the period. That the member was covered in case premiums remained unpaid by the end of the grace period the cover will lapse. But copy of the bank statement of life assured for the year 2014-2016 clearly shows that there was insufficient balance in his account for the period between 01.12.2015-30.11.2016. Thereafter, company received the premium amount for the period 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2017 amounting to Rs.150.65/- and the same was duly refunded by the company on 18.01.2017. As the life assured had opted for Direct Debit, amount was automatically deducted from the bank account of the life assured. Copy of screenshot of the system for which the refund was made annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-V. Thereafter insurance company received claim intimation on 09.08.2016 from the complainant No.2 informing that Life Assured in subject policy died on 02.07.2016 due to Heart Attack. When the claim was received by them and on careful evaluation of the records it was found that at the time of death of life assured i.e. 02.07.2016, policy was not covered due non-payment of insurance premium on account of the insufficient balance in the account of life assured. Hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount on the death of life assured and same was intimated to them by way of letter dt: 29.08.2016. Hence they are not liable to pay any claim amount as the policy was not in force at the time of death of life assured. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        9. Even after receipt of the notices issued by this forum, opposite party No.3 called absent and set exparte.

       10.  On behalf of the complainants 1 and 2, complainant No.2 filed her chief affidavit and Ex:A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one A.R.Mohan, S/o. A.G.Rahuram Naidu, working as Senior Manager of Andhra Bank  filed his evidence affidavit and Ex:B1 and Ex:B2 were marked.On behalf of opposite party No.2, one Prashant Saini, working as Assistant Vice President-Legal at India First Life Insurance Company Limited filed his chief affidavit and Ex:B3 to Ex:B11 were marked. Both the complainants and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       11. Now the point for consideration is:-

        Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                  12.Point:-  The savings bank pass book of deceased T.Jagadeesh is marked as Ex:A1 bearing account No.099110027001012 issued by opposite party No.1 bank in the year 2008 and the entries shows that, the premium was deducted towards insurance policy to the opposite party No.2  and same was admitted by the opposite party No.1. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of household ration card in favour of the first complainant, Ex:A3 is original copy of the death certificate dt: 06.07.2016 issued by the registrar of births and deaths relating to the death of deceased dt: 02.07.2016. Ex:A4 is the office copy of legal notice dt: 02.01.2017 of the second complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Ex:A5 is reply notice dt: 25.01.2017 of the second opposite party addressed to the second complainant and her counsel. Ex:A6 is the reply notice dt: 30.01.2017 of the opposite party No.1 addressed to the second complainants counsel. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 Ex:B1 was attested photo copy of the statement of account of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh bearing SB account No.099110027001012 dt: 25.08.2008 was marked. Ex:B2 is the photo copy of Andhra Bank Jeevan Abhaya Savings Bank Deposits. On behalf of opposite party No.2 Ex:B3 is the certified true copy of the policy documents annexure-V was marked. Ex:B4 is certified true copy of certificate of insurance from 01.12.2011 to 30.11.2012. Ex:B5 is certified true copy of certificate of insurance from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013, 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014 and 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2015 i.e. annexure-III. Ex:B6 is the certified true copy of bank statement. Ex:B7 is certified true copy of screenshot of the system for which the refund of premium was made. Ex:B8 is certified true copy of death claim intimation form, Group Term Life and Death Certificate. Ex:B9 is the certified true copy of letter dt: 29.08.2016. Ex:B10 is certified true copy of legal notice dt: 02.01.2017.Ex:B11 is certified true copy of reply to legal notice dt: 25.01.2017.

                   13.  The main case of the complainants are, their son was having SB Account bearing No. 099110027001012 in opposite party No.1 bank and premiums were deducted through his SB account to the opposite party No.2. The counsel for the complainant further stated that the account holder, who is the son of the complainants 1 and 2, died on 02.01.2016 and the death was informed to the opposite party No.1 by the complainant No.2 who is the nominee and mother of the deceased and she submitted claim application to the opposite party No.1 to process the same and the claim was rejected by the opposite party No.2 as the policy was  in lapsed condition as on the date of the death of the insured as there was no sufficient balance in his account to deduct the premium for the year 2015-2016. The counsel for the complainant further argued that, the deceased T.Jagadeesh in his life time surrendered his ATM Card to the first opposite party on 0711.2012  and requested to cancel the ATM Card and not to deduct the ATM charges from his account. But in spite of it, the opposite party No.1 bank deducted Rs.422/- up to 05.07.2016 towards ATM annual charges and deducted Rs.1131/- towards minimum balance charges for the period from 24.03.2012 to 03.10.2016 and in total the opposite party No.1 bank deducted Rs.1553/- unnecessarily from the account of his son. If these amounts were not deducted by the opposite party No.1 unnecessarily, there would have been sufficient balance in his account to deduct the insurance premium of Rs.151/- from his account in November, 2015.

                    The counsel for the complainant further argued that, in spite of receiving the death intimation and claim application the opposite party No.1 deducted the insurance premium of Rs.150/- on 28.11.2016 and difference amount of Rs. 1/- on 30.11.2016 in total Rs.151/-  deducted from the account of deceased. Later, on 25.11.2017 the opposite party No.1 deducted Rs.155/- towards insurance premium from the SB account of the deceased even after submission of the claim by complainant No.2.The counsel for the complainant further stated that the policy was in force even up to 30.11.2018 as the latest premium was deducted by the opposite party No.1. Even after several requests and notices made by the complainants 1 and 2 to process her claim, the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to consider the same and reply notice was by the opposite party No.1 dt: 30.01.2017 and opposite party No.2 dt:25.01.2017 with all false allegations which is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

                    14.  The counsel for the opposite party No.1 stated that, they have collected the premium and paid the same to the opposite party No.2 when the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh  maintained sufficient balance of amount in his account. But in the month of November 2015 itself, there was no balance to deduct and transfer the insurance premium as per the entries it clear shows that zero balance in statement of account. Regularly, the branch deducted the insurance premium in the month of November in between 26^th to 30^th of every calendar year. Particularly for this account during the period of 2015-2016, there was no balance to deduct and pay the insurance premium from 10.09.2015 to 26.06.2016. Subsequently on 27.06.2016 the deceased deposited cash of Rs.2,000/-, normally all the charges levied by the system only but not manually. Hence they performed their duties as per the guidelines of RBI and provide many services to their customers and insurance scheme of opposite party No.2 was tie up with opposite party No.1 and the second opposite party should perform their duties as per the guidelines of Insurance Regulatory Authority. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 further argued that, the deceased never asked about ATM charges, minimum balance charges and other charges levied by this opposite party though he surrendered the same during his life time and never gave any written complaint to that effect, when he got it entered all the entries in the pass book. The counsel for the opposite party further stated that, after the demise of the deceased they have deducted insurance premium on 28.11.2016 for Rs.150/- and on 25.11.2017 a sum of Rs.155/-.Those premiums were deducted digitally as the programme was installed in the system . The counsel further stated that the account will be kept alive till they receive any requisition for closing the account by account holder or in case of death of account holder by the nominee. But in this particular case till today the nominees of the deceased Talluru Jagadeesh neither gave any request nor tried to close the account. So this opposite party has no right to cancel or close the account without any requisition. As the account was in force, automatically all the charges will be deducted by the system. Hence this opposite party has not collected the insurance premium for the year 2015-2016 due to non-availability of money in account of the deceased. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them as they have performed their duties as per the guidelines of RBI.

                  15. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that in their written arguments, the bank statement of the life assured for the year 2010-2014 clearly indicates that there was insufficient balance in life assured bank account for the period between 01.12.2015 to 30.11.2016.Thereafter company received premium amount for the period from 01.12.2016 to 30.11.2017 amounting of Rs.150.65/- and it was duly refunded by the company on 18.01.2017. Thereafter insurance company received claim intimation on 09.08.2016 from the complainant No.2 that the life assured died on 02.07.2016 due to heart attack. After careful evaluation of the records of the insurance company, it was found that at the time of death of the life assured i.e. 02.07.2016, he was not covered since subject policy was not reissued on 01.12.2016 due to non-payment of insurance premium on account of insufficient balance in the bank account of the life assured. Hence they are not liable to pay any amount on the death of the life assured. Hence they are not liable to pay any claim amount subject policy since policy was not in force by the time of the death of the life assured. Hence claim of the complainants are not acceptable and complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.2.

                   16.  After perusing the records filed by both the parties, it is stated that there is no dispute regarding the payment of the premiums from 2008-2015 and the claim of the complainant was rejected by the opposite party No.2 as the premium was not deducted for the year 2015 -2016 as there is no sufficient balance in the account of the deceased. But the main contention of the complainant is that, in the life time of the deceased he requested the opposite party No.1 to cancel the ATM services to his account by surrendering the ATM Card and also requested not to collect the ATM charges from his account.  But in the present case, even after surrendering the ATM, the opposite party No.1 collected the ATM charges.  Had the opposite party No.1 not collected the ATM charges and minimum balance charges, there would have been sufficient balance in the account of the deceased to deduct the premium. But in this particular case, the opposite parties deducted the ATM charges even after surrendering the ATM Card and there are no ATM transactions. The complainant son was impression that he is having sufficient balance in his account for the payment of premium but the opposite party No.1 collected the minimum balance charges and ATM charges from the account of the deceased. The complainant clearly stated that, the account holder surrendered the ATM and also there were no transactions of ATM for the particular period. Hence the contention of the complainant is accepted. If the above said charges were not deducted, there would have been sufficient balance in the account for the payment of the premium. As per the entries reflected in the Ex:A1 it is clearly shown that there was no transactions of the ATM as the above deceased had not done any ATM transactions. The opposite party No.2 stated that due to the non-payment of the premium for the year 2015-2016 the policy was lapsed. But whatever right accrued to them by way of insurance contract, the said right has been waived by insurance company by their own conduct by receiving the subsequent premium amount and as such rejecting the claim of the complainant is un-justified.

                        Opposite party No.1 relied upon the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Andhra Bank Vs Cherukunuru Geethanjali Vs 3 Others reported in “Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9163176” wherein it is held that “ The insurance premium for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 ought to have been paid by 31.10.2012. Since the balance in the account was only Rs.1/-, the bank could not debit the insurance premium for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.12.2013 to the said account. Therefore, the life of the insured did not get insured for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013. He having died on 19.10.2013, no insurance cover on that day was available on his life. Though a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the deceased in his account on 02.12.2013, the bank could not have debited the insurance premium for the year 2012-2013, i.e., 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013, on or after that amount since it ought to have been paid by 31.10.2012. Therefore, there was no deficiency on part of the bank in rendering services to him.” However we hold that the facts of this case was different from the facts of present case. Hence we therefore hold that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 hence this complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

                    17. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of t he claim i.e. 09.08.2016 till realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation (to be borne equally) and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date  of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the above said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) also shall carry interest @ 9%  per annum from the date of this order till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 26^th day of July, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-                                   

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  Smt. T. Ammulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri A. R. Mohan (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Sri Prashant Saini (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Pass Book for saving Bank Account No.099110027001012 issued to Talluru Jagadeesh by the 1st Opposite Party Bank.
	Self attested photo copy of Household Ration Card No. PAP102603300135 issued in favour of the 1st Complainant T. Subba Rao by the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural.
	Original copy of Death Certificate Dt: 06.07.2016 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths/Panchayat Secretary, Padmavathipuram Gram Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal relating to the death of Talluru Jagadeesh on 02.07.2016.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice Dt: 02.01.2017 of the 2nd Complainant to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2.
	Reply (Original Copy), Dt: 25.01.2017 of the 2nd Opposite Party addressed to the 2nd Complainant and her Counsel.
	Reply, Dt:30.01.2017 of the 1st Opposite Party addressed to the 2nd Complainant’s Counsel.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of Andhra Bank Statement of Account of the Talluru Jagadeesh bearing S.B. A/c. No. 099110027001012. Dt: 21.08.2018
	Photo copy of AB Jeevan Abhaya Savings Bank Deposits(ABJ).
	Certified true copy of the Policy Documents. Annexure -1.
	Certified true copy of Certificate of Insurance from Dt: 01.12.2011 to 30.11.2012. Annexure -2.
	Certified true copy of Certificate of Insurance from Dt: 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2013, from Dt: 01.12.2013 to 30.11.2014 and from Dt: 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2015. Annexure -3.
	Certified true copy of Bank Statement. Annexure -4.
	Certified true copy of Screen Shot of the System for which the refund was Made. Annexure -5.
	Certified true copy of Death Claim Intimation Form - Group Term Life and Death Certificate. Annexure -6.
	Certified true copy of Letter. Dt: 29.08.2016. Annexure -6A.
	Certified true copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 02.01.2017. Annexure -7.
	Certified true copy of Reply to Legal Notice, Dt: 02.01.2017.  Dt: 25.01.2017. Annexure -8.

 

                                                                                                                                          Sd/-                                            

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainants.

                  2) The Opposite parties.