Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that Kashmir Singh son of Bhagwan Singh (son of the complainant) was having bank account bearing No. 122734038100577 with Opposite Party No.1 bank. Further alleges that official of Opposite Party No.1 told to Kashmir Singh that there is a  very good policy of Opposite Party No.2 and in case, he chooses to purchase the same, an amount of Rs.330/- is to be deducted from his account and in case of any untoward incident, his legal heirs will be entitled to insurance amount of Rs.2 lakhs and on the allurement of the officials of Opposite Party No.1, said Kashmir Singh purchased the said policy of Opposite Party No.2. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.330/- was deducted on 06.02.2019 and Rs.330/- deducted on 21.05.2019 from the account of the complainant as is clear from the pass book issued by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of Kashmir Singh insured.  Further alleges that  as ill luck would have it, said Kashmir Singh  expired on 13.06.2019. After that, the complainant being his mother lodged the claim of the insurance amount of deceased insured Kashmir Singh. It is pertinent to mention over here that Kashmir Singh was  wifeless and issuless and hence, the complainant being the mother of deceased insured lodged the claim with the Opposite Party No.2, but the Opposite Party No.2 rejected the claim of the  complainant on the ground that premium has not been remitted as per rules in this  regard and the claim is within lien period and is to be rejected.  But it was not the fault of deceased Kashmir Singh. The premium amount was automatically to be deducted from his account and was to be deposited by Opposite Party No.1 with Opposite Party No.2 on account of premium of the insurance. Thereafter, the complainant many times visited the Opposite Parties and requested to make the insurance claim under the policy,    but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid illegal and unwarranted acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered huge mental tension and  agony and as such   there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the insurance claim of Rs.2 lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment besides Rs. 5000/- as costs of litigation.

2.       Opposite Party No.1  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.1 duly forwarded the claim case file of the complainant to its Head Office on 12.07.2019 and the Head Office forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 16.07.2019 for its clearance. The RTGS  transaction entry dated 11.07.2019 regarding deposit of bulk premium of respective consumers is available in the head office of Opposite Party No.1 and the entire premium amount was duly accepted by Opposite Party No.2. As the entire premium amount for the period of 21.05.2019 to 20.05.2020 was duly accepted by Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS without any kind of objections, then it is the moral duty of the Opposite Party No.2 to comply with the terms of the insurance policy. Moreover, as per the rules, the premiums of consumers are to be deducted for the period i.e. valid upto 20^th of may of Every year. In this concern firstly the premium of the complainant’s son was firstly deducted on 06.02.2019 which was valid upto 31.05.2019. Then on 21.05.2019 second premium  of complainant’s son was deducted in the books of  the bank record. As per the premium was deducted in continuation insurance policy, Opposite Party No.2  can  not take excuse of lien period. As such, Opposite Party No.2 is legally bound to pass the claim  of the complainant  in light of the letter issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services dated 12^th February, 2020 and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party.  On merit, Opposite Party No.1 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and it is prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous and the same may be dismissed.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. No deficiency in service has been attributed to the Opposite Party No.2. In fact, on 06.02.2019 deceased life assured opted to get himself enrolled under the scheme Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Joyti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) through Opposite Party No.1. Although Opposite Party No.1 deducted the amount from the account of deceased insured on 06.02.2019, but remitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 07.05.2019 on which date the deceased was enrolled as a member of Group Insurance Scheme. The PMJJBY was initiated by the Government of India through Department of Finance w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which is renewable from year to year with annual renewal date being 1^st of June each year. As per the instructions of Ministry of Finance dated 2^nd May, 2016, a lien clause has been incorporated in the rules of PMJJBY w.e.f. 1^st June, 2016 whereby the claims for deaths which occur during the first 45 days from the date of enrolment will not be paid. In the present case as the death of deceased Kashmir Singh occurred within the lien period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the premium, the claim is not payable and the same was repudiated as per the guidelines of the scheme and the instructions issued by Government of India. Moreover,  any premium deducted from the accounts of the subscribers of the scheme, the amount and date of the subscribers should be transferred by the bank to the concerned insurance company immediately, but time and again in this case, even the second premium of the subscriber which was deducted on 21.05.2019 was remitted by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2 on 11.07.2019 after the death of subscriber  and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 and the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 deserves to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.          

4.       In order to  prove  her  case, the complainant has tendered into  evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the  affidavit  of Sh.Vinod Kumar Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and  similarly, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/F and thereafter, the Opposite Parties  closed their respective evidence.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also  gone through the documents placed  on record.

7.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties have  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that after the death of life assured the complainant being his legal heir lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Party No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that Opposite Party No.1 duly forwarded the claim case file of the complainant to its Head Office on 12.07.2019 and the Head Office forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 16.07.2019 for its clearance. The RTGS  transaction entry dated 11.07.2019 regarding deposit of bulk premium of respective consumers is available in the head office of Opposite Party No.1 and the entire premium amount was duly accepted by Opposite Party No.2. As the entire premium amount for the period of 21.05.2019 to 20.05.2020 was duly accepted by Opposite Party No.2 through RTGS without any kind of objections, then it is the moral duty of the Opposite Party No.2 to comply with the terms of the insurance policy. Further contended that as per the premium was deducted in continuation insurance policy, Opposite Party No.2  can  not take excuse of lien period. As such, Opposite Party No.2 is legally bound to pass the claim  of the complainant  in light of the letter issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services dated 12^th February, 2020 and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has strenuously contended this contention of ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 on the  ground that although Opposite Party No.1 deducted the amount from the account of deceased insured on 06.02.2019, but remitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 07.05.2019 on which date the deceased was enrolled as a member of Group Insurance Scheme. The PMJJBY was initiated by the Government of India through Department of Finance w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which is renewable from year to year with annual renewal date being 1^st of June each year. As per the instructions of Ministry of Finance dated 2^nd May, 2016, a lien clause has been incorporated in the rules of PMJJBY w.e.f. 1^st June, 2016 whereby the claims for deaths which occur during the first 45 days from the date of enrolment will not be paid. In the present case as the death of deceased Kashmir Singh occurred within the lien period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the premium, the claim is not payable and the same was repudiated as per the guidelines of the scheme and the instructions issued by Government of India. Moreover,  any premium deducted from the accounts of the subscribers of the scheme, the amount and date of the subscribers should be transferred by the bank to the concerned insurance company immediately, but time and again in this case, even the second premium of the subscriber which was deducted on 21.05.2019 was remitted by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2 on 11.07.2019 after the death of subscriber  and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.

8.       It is not disputed that Kashmir Singh Life assured had saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 and he during his life, had purchased insurance policy of Opposite Party No.2, the premium of which was automatically deducted from his account and in case of death, the legal heirs of deceased insured was to be paid Rs.2 lakhs as per the terms of the policy.  It is not denied by the Opposite Parties that  premium amount of Rs.330/- was duly  deducted from the account of son of the complainant on 06.02.2019, so it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1 to forward the amount with the Opposite Party No.2 which was not so done by Opposite Party No.1 due to which insurance amount was not  paid to the complainant by Opposite Party No.2. Even as per the rules, when the amount was deducted from the account of son of the complainant  on 06.02.2019, the son of the complainant was duly insured as per the rules  and it was the internal dispute with the bank and insurance company why they have not sent the premium within due date or why insurance company has accepted the premium after due date. So, the complainant is duly entitled to receive the insurance amount. As per the evidence produced on record,    Opposite Party No.1 deducted the amount from the account of deceased insured on 06.02.2019, but remitted the same to Opposite Party No.2 on 07.05.2019 on which date the deceased was enrolled as a member of Group Insurance Scheme and kept with them for more than 3 months without any explanation and due to remittance of the said insurance premium, Opposite Party No.2 repudiated the rightful claim of the complainant and as such, the official (s) of the Opposite Party No.1 bank are certainly negligence in performing their duties by not sending the premium amount to Opposite Party No.2 and kept with them without any explanation. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 has not produced any evidence to rebut such evidence produced by the complainant as well as by Opposite Party No.2 and hence, the complainant is entitled to the insurance claim.

9.       In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and we direct Opposite Party No.1-bank to  pay the insurance claim of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the complainant under the policy in question  alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.10.2021 till its actual realization.  The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1-Bank within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant  shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.