The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vivekananda Marg, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Remuna, Balasore

                    2. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the husband of the Complainant, being one of the Savings Bank Account holder with O.P No.2-Bank vide his Account No.18530100014675, the O.P No.2-Bank debited a sum of   Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only from the above said account towards premium of “Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana” (in short P.M.S.B.Y) on 19.08.2015. Thus, on an enquiry by husband of the Complainant regarding debit of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only, the O.P No.2 discloses that he is covered under P.M.S.B.Y scheme of Govt. and accordingly, his Bank is under tie-up arrangement with O.P No.1-Insurance Company, for which premium of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only is debited towards premium of such insurance and handed over acknowledgement-cum-certificate of insurance to deceased Janmejay Sahu on 26.05.2015. But, husband of Complainant died on 19.07.2015 due to electric shock, there by the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 and 2 with a prayer to settle the insurance claim in her favour, but both the O.Ps denied to settle the claim. Thus, the Complainant served legal notices to O.P No.1 and 2 through her Advocate on 30.05.2016 to settle the claim of Complainant within 30 days, but the O.Ps denied to settle the matter, for which she filed this case before the Forum. The Complainant has prayed for settlement of insurance claim along with compensation towards mental agony.

                    3. Written version has been filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate, where he has denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. He has also submitted that it is not correct that all account holders of O.P No.2-Bank are automatically covered with insurance coverage under P.M.S.B.Y scheme and as such, deceased husband was protected under above said insurance. But, as per scheme of P.M.S.B.Y, if a person, who got him enrolled dies within one year from the 1st day of succeeding month of the date of enrollment in the scheme, his/her nominee will be entitled to get the sum assured from the insurance company and the enrollment takes place when the premium amount of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only is debited from his/her S.B Account. As admitted by the Complainant in para-4 of her complaint, sum of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only is debited from her deceased husband’s account on 19.08.2015, but her husband died on 19.07.2015  i.e. one month after the death of her husband. Since husband of the Complainant was not covered under the scheme at the time of his death, the O.P No.1- Insurance Company has repudiated her claim. Moreover, the O.P No.1 through his Advocate replied about the reason for rejecting her claim in response to an Advocate notice served by the Complainant.

                    4. Written version has been filed by O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has denied about maintainability as well as its cause of action. He has also submitted that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the O.P is not a service provider and Complainant has suppressed the material fact and wants to take advantage of inadvertent error so communicated by O.P No.2 regarding debit of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only for P.M.S.B.Y scheme dt.19.08.2015 after death of the husband of the Complainant by electric shock i.e. on 19.07.2015, but it is correct to say that the O.P No.2-Bank debited Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only from the Complainant’s husband account on 19.08.2015. The account of the deceased was a non-KYC compliance, hence the account was in non-operative/dormant status, thus the deceased was given several intimation in that regard by the Bank to make the account active by submitting KYC documents, but the Complainant did not submit KYC documents to make the account active. So, the Bank could not debit the premium from the account. But, after the death of Account holder, the relatives of account holder submitted the claim application and on cross checking the existing data of insurance details of Customers available with the system, inadvertently and due to a technical error, the Account status of the deceased was changed to active and the already existed automatic system generated standing instruction go debit the account for insurance premium was executed automatically and the account was debited for Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only, which was happened after the death of the Customer. The inadvertent debit is reversed back by the Bank with value date and the Customer has not suffered any loss in this regard.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Complainant is a Consumer ?

(ii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(iii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iv) Whether the case is barred by Law of limitation ?

(v) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    6. In order to substantiate their pleas, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that her husband was a Savings Bank Account holder under O.P No.2-Bank having Account No.18530100014675 and he has obtained a acknowledgement/ certificate of insurance from O.P No.2-Bank regarding covering of insurance with O.P No.1-Insurance Company for Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana on 26.05.2015. But, he has died on 19.07.2015 and thereafter on 19.08.2015, the said amount of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only was debited from his account. When the amount was debited from the account after death of husband of the Complainant and the O.P No.1-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant when she applied for, so the Complainant and her husband has no role regarding debit of the said amount from the account of husband of the Complainant and also to the O.P No.1-Insurance Company in time. So, the Complainant is entitled for the benefit as prayed for along with compensation. On the other hand, the O.P No.1-Insurance Company has submitted that he has rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant for receiving the claim amount after death of her husband, which is not sustainable in Law. Further, the Advocate for O.P No.2-Bank has taken a plea that as the account was a non-KYC compliance and the required amount of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only was not debited from the account in time and after compliance of KYC, it was debited from the account on 19.08.2015, which is sufficiently after death of the husband of the Complainant. So, the fault is with the husband of the Complainant and not with the Bank. However, from all the material available in the case record, it clearly shows that Complainant is the wife of Late Janmejay Sahu, who was the account holder. So, as per C.P Act-1986, she is the Consumer and there is no delay in filing of this case as revealed from the case record. So, if it is a non-KYC account, the Bank has not taken any step to intimate the same to the deceased husband of the Complainant during his lifetime to activate/ operate his account as no such material available in the case record. So, it clearly shows that due to fault of O.P No.2-Bank, the amount of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve) only could not be debited from the Savings Bank account of the husband of the Complainant towards insurance premium, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of O.P No.2-Bank and rightly the O.P No.1-Insuance Company repudiated the Insurance claim of the Complainant.  

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and basing on the arguments of both the Parties as discussed above, this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.P No.2-Bank is liable to pay the required total eligible Insurance amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana scheme to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-  

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost. The O.P No.2-Bank is directed to pay the required total eligible Insurance amount under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana scheme to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order. 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 10th day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.