Complainant Bimla Rani has filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties and praying that necessary directions may kindly be issued to opposite parties to make payment of Rs.2 Lakhs on account of death of her husband in an accident as per terms and conditions of PMSBY Scheme. Complainant has further claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides the amount in question on account for mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties including Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband namely Prem Chand son of Sh.Tara Chand was having account No.84630300509765 with opposite party No.1 bank. It was pleaded that an insurance scheme was launched by Govt. of India under the name and style of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna and on the asking of officials of opposite party No.2 who is the nodal agency for the implementation of the scheme, the husband of complainant was eligible to receive the benefit of the said scheme opted to subscribe for the same as his date of birth was 24.03.1954. It was further pleaded that the installments were debited from the account of the husband of the complainant from time to time as per policy of the Govt. but unfortunately he was expired on 16.01.2018 in an accident at Jalandhar and his post mortem was conducted at Civil Hospital Jalandhar on 17.01.2018 and also a criminal case was registered in  this regard vide FIR No.0012 dated 16.01.2018 U/s 279/304-A IPC at P.S. Division No.8 Policy Commissionerate at Jalandhar against Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of Village Para P.S. Maqsudan Distt. Jalnahdar. The age of the husband of the complainant was 64 years at the time of death but in the post mortem report his age had wrongly been mentioned as 65 years. It was also pleaded that after the death of husband of complainant opposite parties were approached for the grant of Rs.2 Lakhs which was the benefit of above said scheme i.e. PMSBY as all the required documents were submitted by the complainant but complainant was surprised when her claim was repudiated as 'No Claim' by opposite party No.2 with unsustainable observations i.e. age of the deceased was 71 years vide letter dated 21.12.2018 but this fact is totally wrong as age of deceased husband of complainant was 64 years at the time of his death as his date of birth was 24.03.1954 which was mentioned in his birth certificate  and even in the post mortem report his age was mentioned as 65 years but in the Aadhaar Card his age was wrongly mentioned. These observations regarding age of the deceased raised by opposite party No.2 are totally false, imaginary and not sustainable in the eyes of law and husband of complainant was eligible for the said scheme that is why opposite party No.1 deducted premium amount from his account as  mentioned above. It was next pleaded that complainant approached the opposite parties time and again with the oral as well as written request for the payment of amount of Rs.2 Lakhs as per above said scheme i.e. PMSBY on account of death of her husband but opposite parties always putting off the matter with one pretext or the other on bogus and baseless observations. A registered AD notice dated 18.03.2019 was served upon the opposite party No.1 by the complainant through her counsel with the request to make the payment of the amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice but opposite parties did not give any reply and no such action was taken by them which is a deficiency, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.

3.       Notices were issued to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply stating therein on merit that the age of deceased Prem Chand as per his Aadhaar Card was 71 years as year of birth was 1947 and as per terms and conditions of the policy under PMSBY the cover was available to account holder upto age of 70 years and no other document containing the date of birth of deceased Prem Chand 24.03.1954 was supplied by the complainant. It was stated that opposite party No. 2 verified the date of birth of deceased Prem chand from his Aadhaar Card before covering him under the above said scheme and entered the same in declaration which was duly signed by the deceased and opposite party No.1 debited the installment under the alleged policy. It was further stated that date of birth was recorded in the post mortem report at the instance of complaint 65 years instead of 71 years as per Aadhaar Card which is admissible document. It was also stated that claim of the complainant was right repudiated by opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 21.12.2018 as deceased Prem Chand was 71 years as per his Aadhaar Card and was not covered under PMSBY as per terms and conditions of the policy. All the averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

4.       Opposite party No.2 also appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objection that complaint is bad for mis joinder of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 had nothing to do with the repudiation of the claim of the complainant and no cause of action whatsoever has arisen to the complainant. On merits, it was admitted that Sh.Prem Chand son of Sh.Tara Chand was having account No.84630300509765 with opposite party No.2. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.       Counsel for the complaint to prove the case has filed affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1 with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C13.

6.       On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit of Harbans Lal Divisional Manager Ex.OP-1/1 with copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 and Ex.OP-1/3.

7.       Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has filed affidavit of Surinder Mahajan Ex.OPW-2/1.

8.       Written arguments filed by complainant but not filed by opposite parties.

9.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for the complainant and opposite party no.1.

10.     The grievance of the complainant is that Prem Chand husband of the complainant had died in a road accident. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that Prem Chand was having an account No.84630300509765 with the opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 opened the account and at the time of opening the said account, the concerned officials also purchased Insurance policy in the name of said Prem Chand and the amount was deducted from the account and the installments were debited from the account of the husband of the complainant from time to time as per policy of the government.  Copy of pass Book as Ex.C-1. Prem Chand had died on 16.01.2018, copy of death certificate as Ex.C-3. The death of Prem Chand was occurred in an accident and the same is covered under the said Insurance policy. In this regard vide FIR No.0012 dated 16.01.2018 U/s 279/304-A IPC at P.S. Division No.8 Policy Commissionerate at Jallandhar  registered against Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of Village Para P.S. Maqsudan  Distt. Jallandhar , copy of FIR as Ex. C-5. After the death of Prem Chand, the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 further forwarded the claim to opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 closed the claim with the remarks that the Age of Deceased is 71 Years as per policy term and Conditions cover is available  upto age of 70 years. They repudiated the said claim and closed the file as “No Claim”, Copy of No claim letter as Ex.C-7.

11.     The plea of the opposite party No.1 is that the age of deceased Prem Chand as per his Aadhar Card was 71 years as year of birth was 1947 and as per terms and conditions of the policy under PMSBY the cover was available to account holder upto age of 70 years and no other document containing the date of birth (24.03.1954) of deceased Prem Chand was supplied by the complainant .It was also argued that claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by opposite party No.1 vide letter dated 21.12.2018 as deceased Prem Chand was 71 years as per his Aadhar Card  which is Ex.C8 and was not covered under PMSBY as per terms and conditions of the policy. The opposite Party No.2 i.e. Bank covered Prem Chand under the said Scheme as per Policy instructions. The opposite party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Harbans Lal Divisional Manger, The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited which is Ex.OP/1/1, copy of self Declaration Form of Prem Chand which is Ex.OP1/2, copy of Aadhar card which is Ex.OP1/3.

12.     A perusal of all the documents, it reveals that Prem Chand was insured under the said Insurance policy was not in dispute. But when the opposite party No.1 received the premium amount from opposite party No.2 and issued the Insurance policy in favour of the account holders of opposite party No.2 and during the subsistence of the Insurance policy Prem Chand, husband of the complainant had died in a road accident. So now opposite party No.1 cannot deny the claim of husband of the complainant by asking that Prem Chand deceased was 71 years and as per terms and conditions of the policy under PMSBY the cover was available to account holder upto age of 70 years, when they never made any objection at the time of issuance of Insurance policy and receiving the premium. Moreover the copy of Birth Certificate of Prem Chand which is Ex.C2 is in file and according to this certificate registered vide registration No.373 date of birth is 24.03.1954. But the claim of the claimant has been repudiated by the opposite parties on the basis of the year of birth given on Aadhar Card of the deceased Prem Chand, whereas the date of birth as per copy of birth certificate at Ex.C2 is 24.03.1954. We are of the view that if there is any difference of date of birth on Aadhar Card and on Birth Certificate then the Date of Birth as per  Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority has to be treated as correct as the date in the Aadhar Card is based on the Date of Birth given in Birth Certificate. So the claim of the complainant was required to be decided by opposite parties considering the Date of Birth of the deceased as per Birth Certificate. Hence, the plea of the opposite party No.1 does not seem to be plausible and opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the insurance claim to the complainant.

13.     In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insurance claim to the complainant as per insurance policy under PMSBY within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of  copy of the orders, failing which Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insurance claim alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.5.2019 till its realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.   

                               (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

April 06,2023                                               Member

*YP*