Orissa

Cuttak

CC/137/2022

Sourav Kejriwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S B Das & associates

26 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.137/2022

             Sourav Kejriwal,

           S/o: Shree Mohan Kejriwal,

           At:KejriwalHouse,Plot No.374,

           Mahanadi Vihar,P.:Nayabazar,

          Town/Dist:Cuttack-4.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

             Vrs.

 

1.       The Manager,IDBI Bank Ltd.,

College Square Branch,Ground Floor,

Kavita Bhawan,College Square,

                 Cuttack-753003

2.       The Manager,Pension& Group Scheme Department,                                                                                                                                MDO-1,1st floor, East Wing,Yogakshema Bldg,                                                                                                                                       J B Marg,Mumbai-400021.                                                        ...Opp.Parties

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   11.07.2022

Date of Order:  26.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. S.B.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1    :                     Mr. B.N.Udgata,Adv. & Associates.

                 For the O.P no.2:                         Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.                            

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in nutshell is that the parents of the complainant Sourav Kejriwal had a joint savings account in the O.P no.1 bank bearing A/c. No.217104000014872.The complainant was the nominee in the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna vide Policy No.900100010 which was obtained by his deceased mother Sangita Kejriwal.  After death of the mother of the complainant, his father Shree Mohan Kejriwal became the only and primary account holder of the said savings bank account.Sangita Kejriwal, mother of the complainant had died on 29.4.2019 while being treated at Bengaluru at Karnatak.  As per the PMJJBY it is a one-year life insurance scheme which is renewable annually offering coverage for the death due to any reason and is available to the desirous people within the age group of 18 years to 50 years with a life coverage up to 55 years age.  Having a S.B. Account who gave their consent to join and enable auto-debit within coverage of life of the enrolled person was effected from 1^st June,2015 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- which was valid upto 31^st of May with a premium amount of Rs.330/- per annum per member being renewable annually.  The said scheme was offered/administered through LIC and other Indian Private Life Insurance Companies also.  For enrolment, banks have filed up with Insurance Companies and participating bank is the Master Policy Holder.  The said Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna policy was opted in the financial year 2015-16 in the name of Sangita Kejriwal, the mother of the complainant of this case and the annual premium of Rs.330/- was debited on 12.6.2015.  Subsequently, the said amount of premium of Rs.330/- was being deducted from the aforesaid savings bank account of Sangita Kejriwal towards the said scheme on 26.5.2016,23.5.2017,3.7.2018 and 22.5.2019.

 The complainant had intimated about the death of his mother to O.P no.1 and had thereby claimed the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme.  The complainant thereafter had reminded O.P no.1 for settling the insurance claim vide his e.mails dated 25.2.2021 and 30.5.2021.  On 2.8.2021 when the complainant went to the O.P no.1 bank he was provided with the copy of the letter as sent by O.P no.2 to O.P no.1 wherein the insurance claim of the complainant was rejected by mentioning therein that the deceased Sangita Kejriwal had re-joined the scheme on 3.7.2018 which implied that her age on the date of re-joining the scheme was of 53 years which do not fulfil the condition of the age limit as it does not fall within 18 years to 50 years.  The complainant has further averred in his complaint petition that the first premium towards the said policy was deducted on 12.6.2015 when the age of his mother was 49 years.  When after repeated persuasions, the O.P no.1 bank did not respond to the complainant, he had approached before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards deficiency in their service, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  He has also prayed for interest @ 12% per annum alongwith any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

             In order to substantiate his case, the complainant alongwith his complaint petition has filed copies of several documents.

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their respective separate written versions.  According to written version of O.P no.1, the case ofthecomplainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  O.P no.1 has alleged that the case as filed by the complainant is hit due to non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties.  As per the written version of O.P no.1, the complainant Sourav Kejriwal being son of the deceased Sangita Kejriwal is the nominee of the master policy bearing no.900100010 for the scheme Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna and it being a contract between the parties, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of such contract, O.P no.1 was intimated about the death of Sangita Kejriwal at Bengaluru on 29.4.2019.  The said deceased Sangita Kejriwal had enrolled herself under Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme and the premium amount of Rs.330/- was deducted from her joint savings bank account lying with O.P no.1.  Subsequently on 26.5.2016,23.5.2017,3.7.2018 and 22.5.2019 the annual premium amount were being deducted towards the said policy from the joint savings bank account of Sangita Kejriwal.  After knowing about the death of the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal, the O.P no.1 had demanded from the nominee/complainant for certain documents in order to initiate the claim process.  Accordingly, O.P no.1 had lodged a claim online on 30.10.2019 vide claim no.L021702173227 but the said claim of the complainant was repudiated by O.P no.2/the LIC of India with remark that Late Sangita Kejriwal when had rejoined the scheme on 3.7.18, by that time her age was 53 years which do not fulfil the condition of age criteria to be within 18 years to 50 years.  Thus, according to the O.P no.1, there was no deficiency in his service and the petition as filed by the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

The O.P no.1 has also filed copies of several documents alongwith his written version in order to prove his stand.

The O.P no.1 has filed evidence affidavit through its Branch Manager.  The evidence ofaffidavit of the said Branch Manager, Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Tripathy when perused, it is noticed that the contents are more or less the same and is only the reiteration of the contents as made in the written version of O.P no.1.

As per the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there is no cause of action to file this case.  The claim as made by the complainant was repudiated which was intimated to the Master Policy holder and O.P no.1 since 1.2.2020.  The complainant had filed this case after elapse of more than two years from the date of repudiation.  The O.P no.2 has prayed that the case is barred on the point of limitation which is liable to be dismissed also being not maintainable.

The O.P no.2 has also filed copies of several documents in order to prove his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.              Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.             Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.            Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.I.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition, the contents of both the written versions, the evidence affidavit as filed on behalf of O.P no.1, the written notes of submissions as made and also after perusing the copies of several documents available in this case record, it is noticed that O.P no.2 had repudiated the death claim of the mother of the nominee/complainant Sangita Kejriwal who had opted to join in the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna having Policy no.900100010; without settling it.  The said repudiation was made by O.P no.2 on 1.2.2020 vide Annexure-B as filed by O.P no.1 here in this case.  The contention of the complainant in this regard is that, after issuing several e.mail reminders he had gone to O.P no.1 bank on 2.8.2021 where he could get copy of the said repudiation letter dated 1.2.2020.While perusing the said repudiation letter of O.P no.2 dated 1.2.2020, it is noticed that the said letter has been addressed to O.P no.1 mentioning therein that the claim as raised by the nominee/complainant towards the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme holder Late Sangita Kejriwal was repudiated since because on the date of rejoining the scheme on 3.7.2018 her age was 53 years which do not fulfil the criteria of the scheme that a person intending to enrol himself/herself in the said scheme  should be within the age limits of 18 years to 50 years.  Though O.P no.1 had received the said letter, there is no evidence on record so as to establish that the said repudiation letter was within the knowledge of the complainant immediately after such repudiation.  O.P no.1 being the Master Policy holder under whom the policy was obtained by the Late mother of the complainant, it was his bounden duty to apprise the nominee/claimant Sourav Kejriwal who is the complainant also in this case; as regards to such repudiation of his claim immediately when the said letter was received from O.P no.2.  Moreso, it was also the duty of O.P no.2 to inform the nominee of the policy holder as regards to such repudiation immediately when the same was done at their end.  There is neither any scrap of document available in this case record nor has been provided by either of the O.Ps in that regard.  In absence of such, the plea as taken by the O.P no.2 through his written version that the case is hit being filed after two years of the expiry period; does not hold good.  It is the contention of the complainant that he could know about the repudiation of his claim when he had visited personally to O.P no.1 bank where he was provided with the copy of the letter of O.P no.2 dated 1.2.2020 regarding repudiation of his insurance claim.  As such, the case which has been filed by the complainant cannot be termed to be hit under the plea that it is filed after the lapse of the statutory period of limitation.  O.P no.1 has urged about the case to be bad under the eye of law being misjoinder/non-joinder of parties, but he has not clarified properly as to who were the necessary parties those who were left out and which one was an unnecessary party added here in this case as a party.  When the O.Ps have failed to prove the same and when the complainant has stated to have received the copy of the repudiation letter on 2.8.2021 when he had physically gone to O.P no.1 bank, the case being filed thereafter on 11.7.2022 is definitely maintainable.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue no.ii.

             There is no dispute that the deceased Sangita Kejriwal had preferred to join in the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna on 12.6.2015.  It is also not in dispute that as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme, which was annually to be renewed, the premium amounts of Rs.330/- were being debited from the savings bank account of the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal for the years 2016,2017,2018 & 2019.  The deduction of the premiums being not disputed either by O.P no.1 or by O.P no.2, it is not understood as to how both of them have used a novish word “rejoining” the scheme by Sangita Kejriwal on 3.7.2018.  It is also not understood as to how the O.Ps have claimed that on 3.7.2018 the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal was of 53 years in age as per their own rejoining formula.  As per the terms and conditions of the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna policy, the intending person to join in that scheme should have a Savings Bank account and should give consent to join enabling “auto-debit system”.  As per the said terms and conditions, Sangita Kejriwal, the mother of the complainant had opted to join in the said policy and had given her consent by virtue of which she was enrolled in that scheme and the annual premiums of Rs.330/- were being deducted from her savings bank account on 12.6.2015,26.5.2016,23.5.2017,3.7.2018 and 22.5.2019.  This deduction of the annual premiums of Rs.330/- in favour of the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal is not at all disputed by the O.Ps of this case.  It being auto-debit system, the premiums were auto-debited and there is also no document to show that if at any point of time, the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal, who had a S.B.Account; ofcourse jointly with her husband Shree Mohan Kejriwal; was having insufficient funds in her account.  Thus, when the policy holder Sangita Kejriwal during her life time had given her consent to enrol in the said Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme being within the age criteria of 18 years to 50 yeas having one S.B.Account, given consent to join and enable auto-debit system in order to have risk coverage of her life, it is not understood as to when there is no single latch pointed out on her part, how could the O.Ps thrust the blame upon her that she re-joined in the scheme on 3.7.2018 and by then she was of 53 years in age.  Moreso, this word,“rejoining” do not find place anywhere in the terms and conditions of the said Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme.  Thus, it is not understood by this Commission as to how could the O.Ps derive such a word which is foreign/allien to the terms and conditions of the said policy and could apply the same by blaming and thereby claiming that the deceased policy holder Sangita Kejriwal had “rejoined” the scheme on 3.7.2018 and that by then she had crossed the age criteria being not within the age limit of 18 years to 50 years.  When said PMJJBY scheme was prescribed a definite age criteria, O.Ps should not hve misinterpreted the same and is no case should have allowed anyone to rejoin in the said scheme.  It is because, there is no term in the said scheme for allowing anyone to rejoin.  And the O.Ps without any hesitation had deducted and accepted the annual premiums of Sangita Kejriwal since from the year 2015 till 2019.  This erroneous,unprecedented conclusionof the O.Ps and resulting to repudiate the claim of the complainant who is undoubtedly the nominee of his deceased mother Sangita Kejriwal; such activities of the O.Ps tilts our eye brows.  In the result, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission finds that the repudiation of the claim towards the maturity value of the Prime Minster Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna scheme to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as made by O.P no.2 on 1.2.2020 is sheer non-application of reasonable mind, which deserves to be condemned.  Accordingly, this Commission comes to a conclusion that infact by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the O.Ps are found to be in gross deficiency in their service.  This issue thus repels away from the O.Ps and swings infavour of the complainant of this case.

Issue no.iii.

             From the discussions as made above, the complainant is definitely entitled to the reliefs as made by him here in this case.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                                             ORDER

The case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to release the insured value of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of his application i.e. 29.4.2019 till the total amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation towards his mental agony and harassment together with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26^th day of   July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                         President

                            

 

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                         Member