Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/20/4

KAMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ROPAR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER KAUR

19 Nov 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  04 of 15.01.2020

                                 Date of decision                    :    19.11.2020

 

Kamal aged about 46 years, son of Hakam Chand, resident of VPO Dhamana, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Rupnagar through its Branch Manager
2. The Ropar Central Cooperative Bank Limited. BO Takhatgarh, District Rupnagar, through its Branch Manager  
3. LIC of India Branch Rupnagar through its Divisional Branch Manager    

   ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant   : Smt. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate

O.Ps. No.1 & 2 ex-parte

For O.P. No.3  : Sh. H.C. Verma, Advocate 

 

                                           ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT 

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (now amended as Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the O.Ps. on the averments that O.P. No.1 is having registered office at Rupnagar and having its Branch Office at Village i.e. O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.1 is corporate agent of LIC General Insurance Company Limited and O.P. No.3 is Insurance Company.  Wife of the complainant namely Bimla (now deceased) having saving account bearing No.173034035100724 with O.P. No.1 and through this account, she had taken Insurance Policy bearing No.900100190 of Rs.2,00,000/, under Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJRY), which was initiated on 25.6.2019 and paid premium amount regularly to O.Ps. No.1 & 2. On 18.07.2019, wife of the complainant was died due to heart attack, which is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further averred that the complainant being nominee of his deceased wife approached O.Ps. No.1 & 2 for settle the claim but vide letter dated 15.11.2019, the claim of the complainant was repudiated stating therein that the “death of deceased is within lien period”. Due to this act and conduct of the O.Ps, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as cost of harassment and litigation. 
2. On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 & 2, accordingly, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.11.2020. 
3. Upon notice, O.P. No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable; that this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action against the O.Ps. On merits, it was averred that wife of the complainant paid only one premium at the inception of the policy i.e. on 25.6.2019. Life Assured on within 23 days from the date of joining into the scheme. According to the terms and conditions of the scheme risk cover will commence only after 45 days from the date of enrollment into the scheme. In this case, death during the lien period of 45 days, no claim would be admissible. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the death of life assured occurred within the lien period of 45 days from the date of enrollment of the life assured into the scheme. It is further averred that the complainant is not entitled for any claim whatsoever according to the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the prevailing scheme rules of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMMJJBY) for subscribers enrolling for the first time on or after 01.06.2016 insurance benefits shall not be available for death (due to cause other than accident) occurring during the first 45 days from the date of enrollment into the scheme. Life Insurance Corporation of India is just a custodian of this policy which is originally introduced and administered by the Government of India in consultation with the Finance Ministry. This is not a scheme designed by the LIC of India and all the terms and conditions of this scheme are designed/modified by the Government of India from time to time. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the O.P. No.3 and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   
4. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Exs.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, O.P. No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Malohtra, Manager LIC Ex.3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/H and closed the evidence.    

5.    We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, O.P. No.3 and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    The learned counsel for the complainant Smt. Rajwinder Kaur, argued that the complainant had purchased one policy under Pradhan Mantri Jeewan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJRY) of Rs.2,00,000/- from OPs. Unfortunately, on 18.7.2019, the complainant had died due to heart attack, which is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Being nominee, the husband of the DLA approached to the O.Ps. for settlement of the claim but the O.Ps. did not allow the claim of the complainant on the ground that death of the deceased is within lien period. Due to this act and conduct of the O.Ps. the complainant filed the present complaint. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.  

7.    From the side of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 none has appeared despite issuance of notice. Therefore, the O.Ps. No.1 & 2 were proceeded against ex-parte. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 Sh. H.C. Verma, argued that the O.Ps. rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant because the complainant’s wife was died within the lien period of 45 days from the date of enrollment of the life assured into the scheme and the complainant is not entitled for any claim whatsoever according to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further argued that as per the prevailing scheme rules of Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna for subscribers enrolling for the first time on or after 01.06.2016 insurance benefits shall not be available for death occurring during the first 45 days from the date of enrollment into the scheme. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.   

8.    Complainant is resident of VPO Dhamana, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and the O.Ps. having office is also in this District. So on the point of territorial jurisdiction O.P. No.3 has not opposed and this forum has territorial jurisdiction. The complainant placed on file consent cum declaration form issued by the O.Ps, which shows that the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable.  

9.    Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service or not. In para No.5 of the complaint the complainant stated that applicant/complainant had died on 18.7.2019 due to heart attack which is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. To prove the deficiency in service, the complainant tendered Ex.C2 i.e. consent cum declaration form, Ex.C3 is the letter dated 09.12.2019, Ex.C3 is letter dated 15.11.2019 issued by the LIC, which proves the complainant purchased the policy and repudiated the claim.  On this score, the complainant closed the evidence. Whereas, the O.P. No.3, beside the affidavit placed on file Ex.OP3/B copy of office order, Ex.OP3/C copy of consent cum declaration form, Ex.OP3/D copy of letter dated 15.11.2019 vide repudiated the claim of the complainant, Ex.OP3/E copy of letter dated 28.3.2019 i.e. terms and conditions, Ex.OP3/F i.e. also regarding the conditions of the policy then Ex.OP3/G & Ex.OP3/H.

10.  The learned counsel for O.P. No.3 made prayed that the Deceased Life Assured (in short ‘DLA’) opened account with O.Ps. and joined PMJJBY Scheme on 25.6.2019 and an amount of Rs.330/- was debited from her account. She died on 18.07.2019, due to heart attack i.e. within one month from the purchase of policy. As per consent cum declaration form Ex.OP3/C, it was specifically mentioned in the same that the same was read and understood and hereby given the consent to become a member of the scheme. The claim cannot be given as per Lien Clause unless 45 days has lapsed. In this case, the DLA had died within one month from the opening of the account with OP No.3.  

11.  This forum has gone through the entire pleadings and documentary evidence placed on file and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and has finally come to the conclusion that the DLA has died within 45 days. The lien clause of letter dated 15.5.2017 reads as under:-

       Lien Clause:- “It has been decided by the Competent Authority that a lien clause continuous to be applicable in rules of PMJJBY from Jun 01,2016, whereby claims for deaths which occur during the first 45 days from the date of enrollment will not be paid, effectively meaning that the risk cover will commence only after the completion of 45 days from the date of enrolment into the scheme by the member. However, deaths due to accidents will be exempt from the lien clause”. 

The learned counsel for the O.P. No.3 has placed on the record the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in First Appeal No.69 of 2020, titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Mohinder Kaur and Ors, vide which the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, held that as per the Lien Clause the DLA died within 45 days of the purchase of the policy and the complainant not entitled for any claim.

 12. After appreciating the law referred above and appreciating the facts of the complaint, this forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. So, in the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost. 

13.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.   

 

                    ANNOUNCED                                                       (KULJIT SINGH)

                     Dated.19.11.2020                                      PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                              (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                             MEMBER