DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  16^th  day of August,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of Filing: 01/01/2019    

     CC/1/2019

Riga Vinod,

W/o Late Vinod Gopinath,

No. 30, Grand Village, Mattumantha,

Palakkad – 678 005.

(By Adv. Surendran P.A.)                                                       -           Complainant

                                                                                                  Vs

1. The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank Ltd,

       Main Branch, Sulthanpet, Near HPO,

       Palakkad – 678 001

2.    The Manager in Charge,

Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce -

Life Insurance Company Ltd.,  

New Jyothi Towers, S.S. Kovil Road, Thampanoor,

Trivandrum – 695001.                            

3.    The Chief Manager/ The Manager in Charge

       Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce -

       Life Insurance Company Ltd.

       Orchid Business Park, 2^nd floor,

       Sector 48, Sohna Road, Gurugram,

        Haryana – 122 018, India.                                              -           Opposite parties

        (OP 1  by Adv. C. Balachandran)

        (OPs 2 &3 by Adv. K.N. Sreelatha)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant, along with her deceased husband, was beneficiaries of two Insurance policies under ‘Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyothi Bheema Yojana’ availed from the 2^nd opposite party. Periodical premium of Rs. 330/- along with applicable service charges were to be auto debited to the joint account held by the complainant and her husband in the 1^st opposite party Bank on the 31^st day of May of each year as per the terms and conditions of the Policy documents and agreement between the complainant and opposite parties. Complainant’s husband died on 04/04/2018. The complainant was denied the benefits under the policy by the 2^nd opposite party on the ground that the policy stood terminated as the premium due for the year 2016-2017 was not paid. Failure to remit premium occurred due to the deficiency in service on the part of the part of the 1^st opposite party Bank. There was sufficient balance in the joint account of the complainant and her deceased husband. The 1^st opposite party had not informed the complainant of her husband regarding any insufficiency in funds. Complaint is filed seeking indemnification of losses suffered and  other pecuniary compensations and costs.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective versions.

Opposite party 1 filed a version repudiating the complaint allegation that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Premium for the year 2016-2017 was not debited as the joint account of the complainant did not have sufficient balance of Rs. 1000/-. Communication regarding non-debit and subsequent lapse of policy was intimated to the deceased husband of the complainant via SMS. The lapses were on the part of the complainant and her deceased husband. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

Opposite Parties 2 and 3  filed version stating that the policy was in a lapsed state as on the date of death and hence they were unable to provide coverage, and sought for dismissal of the complaint as against them.

 3.        The following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether there was any bar in debiting a lesser amount towards the premium amount of the complainant’s husband, even if the deposits therein were lesser than the minimum balance amount of Rs. 1000/- that needed to be maintained?
2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
4. Reliefs, if any?

4.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavits of the complainant and opposite parties. Complainant marked Exts.A1 to A12. Opposite party 1 marked Exts.B1. Opposite party 2 marked Exhibit B2 to B4. Oral evidence comprised of the testimonies of the complainant and witnesses for opposite parties 1 and 2.

            Issue No. 1

5.         Soul of the dispute is in answering the question “whether the 1^st opposite party bank erred in not debiting Rs. 330/- along with Rs. 12/- being the service charge (Rs. 342/- in total) from the joint account of the complainant and her husband towards the premium payable when the account was having amounts in excess of the amounts required for premium amount albeit the said higher amount was lesser than the amount required to be maintained as minimum amount in the bank account?”

6.         Exhibit A2 is the Regulations relating to “Pradhanmanthri Jeevan Jyothi Bheema Yojana”. Clause 9 of Exhibit A2 deals with a situation when the coverage provided from the Scheme is lapsed.

            9.  C³jqd³kv ]cnc£ Ahkm\n¡p¶Xv

                        Hcp AwK¯nsâ Poh\pÅ C³jqd³kv ]cnc£ Xmsg ]dbp¶ GsX¦nepw Hcp ØnXn kwPmXamhpIbmsW¦n ]pXpt¡­ hmÀjnI XnbXnbv¡v Ahkm\n¡p¶Xmbncn¡pw. ]n¶oSv CXp kw_Ôn¨ bmsXmcp B\pIqey§fpw e`yamhp¶XÃ.

        F) ]pXpt¡­ hmÀjnI XnbXnbv¡v 55 hbÊv ]qÀ¯nbmIpI

        _n) _m¦v A¡u­v Ahkm\n¸n¡pI Asæn C³jqd³kv \ne\nÀ¯m\mhiyamb XpI A¡u­n CÃmXncn¡pI. (Emphasis provided by us).    

            The second sub clause, ie. Sub clause (b) makes it clear that two of the situations contemplated for lapsing of the coverage is

1. either closure of account; or
2. the amount in the account goes below the amount required to maintain the 

Insurance.

            What is contemplated is either the account is closed or that the amount in  the account goes below the amounts required to maintain the insurance. The term “maintain the insurance” can safely be read as the amount required to pay premium and the service charge. In the facts and circumstance of this case, what was required is that there needed to be Rs. 330/- along with Rs. 12/- being the service charges (Rs. 342/-) each for two persons, ie. totaling Rs. 684/- in the joint account of the complainant maintained in the 1^st opposite party Bank.

7.         Premium for insurance of the deceased for the year 2016-2017 was not debited on the ground there was no sufficient balance in the account of the complainant.

            Ext. A3 is the statement of account pertaining to the joint account held by the complainant and deceased Vinod Gopinath in the 1^st opposite party Bank. The instances wherein the 1^st opposite parties had debited the account even when there was no minimum balance (as opposed to the pleadings of the 1^st opposite party) during 2015-2017 period is scheduled below 

            The above transaction 1-13 are made without minimum balance in the account. The Bank had permitted to debit the account below minimum balance.

                        If years preceding 2015 and post 2016 are to be considered, then the transaction where the minimum balance rule was not adhered to would go even higher.

                        On 26.05.2016 and 27.05.2016 (Transactions 14 &15 in the schedule), after deducting the 1^st premium, there was a balance of Rs. 1075.05 in the account. What prevented debiting of the 2^nd premium is a mystery. If the accounts could be permitted to be debited for so many times, nothing prevented the bank from auto debiting the account of the complainant with a further Rs. 342/-

                         In his cross examination, DW1, witness for opposite party 1 Bank has deposed as below:

            Page 6, lines 10 to 13 – “Minimum balance\v Xmsg  t]mhpIbmsW¦n F´mWv  banksâ procedure (Q) s]\m«n charges CuSm¡mdp­v. AXv F{X XpIbmsW¶v AdnbnÔ.   

8.         We therefore conclude that even if there was no sufficient funds in the accounts to honour the minimum balance regulation of the bank, the option available to the Bank was to penalize the customer and not prevent  deductions of premium towards insurance  or prevent auto debiting for which clear instructions were given.

            Issue no. 2

9.         From a reading of the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the pleadings and evidence adduced, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

            But there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party Bank.  Resultantly we allow the complaint, as against the 1^st opposite party.

            Issue nos. 3 and 4

10.       On an  appreciation of the entire factual matrix, we conclude that the complainant has suffered pecuniary losses, mental pain and agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party; not to mention dragging her to prolonged litigation. We are also of the opinion that loss of insurance coverage arising out of the death of husband of the complainant has a clear, unambiguous and direct proximity and nexus to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The losses suffered by the complainant are not notional, but quantifiable. Considering the above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:

            1.         Complainant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) being the

            loss suffered by the complainant by way of the loss of insurance coverage together with interest at the rate of 10% from 04.04.2018 till date of payment.

2.         The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand only) for mental pain and agony.

3.         The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)

            This Order shall be complied within 45 days from date of  receipt of  a copy of this Order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs. 250/- per month of part thereof till last date of compliance of this order.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 16^th  day of August,  2022.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                            Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                        Member     

                             Sd/- 

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of facting sheet pass book for joint SB account bearing

                 No.0812101062531

 Ext.A2  –  Photocopy of acknowledgement and insurance certificate alongwith  Rules of

                  PMJJBY Scheme issued to deceased Vinod & the complainant.

Ext.A3 –  Certified copy  of statement of account for account No.0812101062531 

Ext.A4 –  Photocopy of death certificate 

Ext.A5 –   Original of repudiation letter dated 6/6/2018

Ext.A6  -   Copy of communication dated 13/8/2018

Ext.A7 –   Copy of lawyers notice dated 15/11/2018 alongwith postal receipts.

Ext.A8 – Original of lawyers notice dated 7/12/2018

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 –  Certified copy  of statement of account for account No.0812101062531

 Ext.B2 – Copy of Acknowledgment clip cum certificate of insurance

Ext.B3 –  Photocopy of repudiation letter dated 6/6/2018

Ext.B4 –  Printout of undated communication from Canara Bank.

 Court Exhibit

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Court Witness

Nil

Cost : Rs.25,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.