BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.65 of 2019.
Date of institution:08.03.2019.
Date of decision:22.01.2021.
Sunita Sharma wife of Bajinder Kumar, resident of Village and Post Office Chandana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch Office A.D.B. Kaithal, District Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
….Respondent.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the husband of complainant namely Bajinder Kumar is consumer of Op and he visited the Op to get himself insured and chosen Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna (PMSBY). The husband of complainant purchased the policy of insurance after making the premium amount of Rs.12/- on 07.07.2015. As per the terms and conditions as-well-as Guidelines of the Central Govt. of India, the said policy of insurance was Auto Debit Scheme and in this scheme, the Op bank was bound to auto debit the premium every year from the bank account of insured. On the unfortunate day i.e. on 12.07.2016, the husband of complainant died due to electric shock while working in the fields. The post-mortem of the insured was conducted and an FIR/DDR in this regard was registered in the police station. The complainant being nominee of her husband lodged the claim with the Op bank and submitted all the necessary documents but the Op bank has not disbursed the claim amount to the complainant rather lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is hopelessly time-barred. The death of husband of complainant took place on 12.07.2016, whereas present complaint has been filed on 28.03.2019 i.e. much beyond limitation period; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op as the account No.65054996106 in the name of Sh. Bajinder Kumar i.e. husband of complainant from whom the amount was to be debited was lying dormant/inoperative, hence, the premium amount could not be auto debited by the computer system. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the husband of complainant namely Bajinder Kumar purchased the policy of insurance after making the premium amount of Rs.12/- on 07.07.2015. According to the complainant, as per the terms and conditions as-well-as Guidelines of the Central Govt. of India, the said policy of insurance was Auto Debit Scheme and in this scheme, the Op bank had right to deduct the premium through auto debit from the bank account of insured. The grievance of the complainant is that on 12.07.2016, the husband of complainant died due to electric shock while working in the fields but the Op did not pay the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna inspite of filing of claim by the complainant with the bank.
From the perusal of written statement of the Op, it is crystal clear that the bank has not denied the auto debit facility to the account of deceased. The complainant also placed on record copy of consent-cum-Declaration Form under the head of Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna which is Annexure-C4 duly signed by the husband of complainant and endorsed by the bank on the performa issued by the bank and also mentioned the saving account number of the deceased namely Bajinder Kumar and name of nominee i.e. complainant is also mentioned. It is also mentioned in the Annexure-C4 regarding procedure for deducting the premium amount through auto debit scheme from the saving account of the complainant, terms and conditions for deducting the premium which is reproduce as under:-
“I hereby authorize you to debit today my Saving Bank Account with your Branch with Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve only) plus Service Tax, if applicable, and on or before 31st May every subsequent year until further instructions to the contrary (strike out whoever is not applicable) a sum of Rupees Twelve or a revised amount that may be decided with immediate intimation to me.”
The Op has taken the objection that the amount of premium was to be debited from the account of deceased and the same was lying dormant/inoperative, hence, premium could not be deducted and policy was not in force at the time of death of deceased. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Op placed on file statement of account of deceased shown account status: inoperative but there is no date mentioned when it was inoperative, so, this document is not helpful to the Op. On the other hand, at the time of arguments ld. Counsel for the complainant also placed on file copy of statement of saving account of deceased namely Bijender Kumar from the period 30.06.2014 to 25.03.2017. At the time of death of Bijender Kumar on 12.07.2016, it is clearly mentioned that there was sufficient amount i.e. Rs.579/- lying in the account of deceased for deducting the premium amount. Ld. Counsel for the Op also placed on record rules for Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Yojna and drew our attention towards the heading of termination of cover, clause-4, which is as under:-
“4) If the insurance cover is ceased due to any technical reasons such as insufficient balance on due date or due to any administrative issues, the same can be reinstated on receipt of full annual premium, subject to conditions that may be laid down. During this period, the risk cover will be suspended and reinstatement of risk cover will be at the osle discretion of insurance company.”
Similarly, the Op also placed on record FAQ on Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna and drew our attention towards the Q6, which is as under:-
“Q6. What is the enrolment period and modality?
Initially on launch for the cover period from Ist June, 2015 to 31st May, 2016 subscribers are expected to enroll and give their auto-debit option by 31st May, 2015, extendable upto 31st August, 2015. Enrolment subsequent to this date may be possible prospectively on payment of full annual payment, subject to conditions that may be laid down.
Subscribers who wish to continue beyond the first year will be expected to give their consent for auto-debit before each successive May 31st for successive years. Delayed renewal subsequent to this date may be possible on payment of full annual premium, subject to conditions that may be laid down.”
From the perusal of Q6, it is clear that if subscriber wish to continue the policy beyond the first year will be expected to give their consent for auto-debt before each successive May 31st for successive years. But the above-said rules and FAQ have not been relied upon in the written statement. Even otherwise, perusal of the Annexure-C4, it is clearly mentioned that the bank has been authorized to debit the premium from the saving account of the customer before 31st May every subsequent year until further instruction to the contrary. It means that the bank is duty bound to debit the amount of premium from the account of its customers for every subsequent year. So, the rules as-well-as FAQ in clause Q6 are contrary to Annexure-C4, which is duly signed by the complainant and endorsed by the bank. We are of the view when the customer has authorized the Op to debit the premium amount, the above-said rules and FAQ are not helpful to the Op. Even then, they have not taken the such plea in the written statement. The Op cannot take the help of rules or FAQ and they cannot debar the complainant to give the benefit of the policy which is floated by the Govt. to give the benefit to the needy person. We are of the considered view that the plea regarding dormant/inoperative of the account is not sustainable in the eyes of law whenever the deceased was having the sufficient amount for deducting the premium as per auto debit scheme in his saving account at the time of death as discussed above.
7. The Op has also taken the plea that the complaint is time-barred. To decide this point, we have perused the Annexure-C1 which was taken by the complainant from the bank through R.T.I. from which it is clear that the complainant has applied the compensation under the Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna for Rs.2,00,000/- as per scheme on 26.12.2016 and the same was rejected on 20.03.2017 on the ground of non-depositing of the insurance premium by the deceased namely Bijender Kumar. From the above-said facts, it is clear that the complainant applied for compensation on 26.12.2016 and the same was rejected on 20.03.2017. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 08.03.2019 within the limitation period of two years as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the plea of Op that the present complaint is time-barred not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Op further taken the objection that the complainant has prayed in prayer para that to refund the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- illegally charged by the Ops from the complainant, he has not claimed the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as per the Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojan, so, the complainant is not entitled for any relief whenever the complainant has not claimed the insurance amount in prayer para. Perusal of the whole complaint, it is clear that the complaint is claiming the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- of the insurable amount in para No.12 and 15 of the complaint. This commission has to see that whether the complainant is entitled for relief as per averments mentioned in the complaint, we have read the whole of complaint and complainant asserted that the Op has not disbursed the claim amount as per Pradhan Mantri Bima Yojna Scheme. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been enacted by the Legislature to help the consumers from exploitation in the hands of unscrupulous service providers-It is incumbent duty of the Commission to ensure that Act is implemented not only in letter but also in spirit-It is, therefore, the duty of the Commission to ensure that consumers are not being harassed by false, frivolous and meritless litigations and they get speedy justice-The object of the Act loses its purpose if the Court permits meritless litigations and allow the exploitation of the consumer-It is the paramount duty of the court or commission to protect their rights and nip all such litigations.
8. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs. The Op is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (insured amount) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony. The Op is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 45 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:22.01.2021.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
