Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/304/2021

Kamla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Parvesh Kumar Banwal

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/304/2021
Date of Institution	:	05/05/2021
Date of Decision	:	12/12/2022

 

Kamla Devi, aged about 56 years, wife of Sh. Balvir Singh, resident of H.No.2238/62, Gali No.6, Shanti Nagar, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh PIN 160101.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, SCO No.1120-21, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
2. The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Zonal/Regional Office SCO No.185-187, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh-160009.
3. The General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Head Office : Baroda Bhavan, R C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda – 390007, Gujarat (India)

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Parvesh Kumar Banwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Counsel for OPs

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Ms.Kamla Devi, complainant against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is mother of Sh. Mantej Varma (now deceased) who was having his saving account No.01100100015745 with OP-1. The deceased Sh. Mantej Varma had taken a term insurance policy under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (hereinafter referred to as “PMSBY”) on 21.10.2019 for which premium of ₹12/- was deducted by the OP bank on 21.10.2019 from the said saving bank account. When the deceased Sh. Mantej Varma was at the age of 22 years, he met with an accident on 25.7.2020 and succumbed to the injuries on 27.7.2020.  The matter was reported to the police, which resulted in registering FIR. Post mortem examination of the deceased was also conducted on the same day.  As premium of the term insurance was deducted on 21.10.2019, the insurance policy was valid for one year i.e. till 20.10.2010 and since Sh. Mantej Varma had died on 27.7.2020, he was very much covered under the aforesaid insurance policy. As per rules for the PMSBY, premium was to be auto debited from the saving account of the insured by the bank. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs to pay the insured amount of the deceased under the said policy, but, the same was declined by the OPs on the ground that at the time of death of the deceased Sh. Mantej Varma, policy had already expired and accordingly OPs refused to pay the insured amount vide Annexure C-7.  As there is no fault on the part of the deceased to pay the subsequent premium, since as per rules it is the responsibility of the bank to provide auto debit service and the premium has to be deducted from the saving account of the insured, it was sole responsibility of the OPs to renew the policy.  On account of the death of the son of the complainant namely Sh. Mantej Varma and also due to the act of the OPs, complainant had to suffer pain and mental agony. The aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well as negligence on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, cause of action and also that as lien was marked on the account of the deceased due to which no effective amount was available in the account of the deceased, as a result of which premium for the period w.e.f 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2021 was not deducted.  On merits, admitted that the deceased Sh. Mantej Varma was having aforesaid saving account with the OPs and an amount of ₹12/- was deducted as premium for the coverage of period starting from 21.10.2019 to 31.5.2020, but, denied that the policy was not renewed due to the negligence on the part of the OPs, rather the same was not renewed as there was no effective amount available in the account of the deceased in the month of May 2020 since the policy was required to be renewed w.e.f. 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2021. As the deceased had died on 27.7.2020 and the policy in question was not in operation at that time, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of OPs.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, the complainant re-asserted her claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma son of the complainant was having his aforementioned saving account with the OPs and he was covered under the PMSBY scheme on payment of premium of ₹12/-, which was auto debited from his saving account by the OPs, and the policy was valid w.e.f. 21.10.2019 and the deceased Sh. Mantej Varma met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries on 27.7.2020, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant, being mother and sole legal heir of her son Sh. Mantej Varma, is entitled for the claim to the tune of ₹2,00,000/- under the PMSBY scheme, as is the case of the complainant, or if the insurance policy was not in operation at the time of death of Sh. Mantej Varma and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of the OPs due to non renewal of the policy and the consumer complain of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted facts on record, pleadings set out by the parties in the consumer complaint, reply and rejoinder, coupled with the evidence led by them, especially the rules under PMSBY scheme, which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the bankers, insurance companies for the deduction of premium from the saving account of the insured, are required to be scanned carefully.
   3. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the statement of account which indicates that premium of ₹12/- was deducted from the saving account of the deceased on 21.10.2019 for the insurance of the deceased.  Annexure C-3 is the copy of the FIR which indicates that the deceased had met with an accident on 25.7.2020. Annexure C-4 is the copy of the medical certificate which reveals that Sh. Mantej Varma had died on 27.7.2020 which fact is also evident from the death certificate (Annexure C-5).  Annexure C-6 is the rules for the PMSBY scheme. Annexure C-8 is the copy of legal notice through which the complainant requested the OPs to pay the insured amount. Annexure OP-1/1 is copy of the group personal insurance accident scheme under PMSBY which indicates that the deceased was insured w.e.f. 21.10.2019 to 31.5.2020. Annexure OP-1/2 is the account balance details showing that the lien amount of ₹25,617.80 was marked on the account of the deceased, Sh. Mantej Varma.
   4. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record that it was the bounden duty of the OPs to renew the insurance cover of deceased Sh. Mantej Varma through auto debit service, as the deceased was having his savings account with the OPs, and even if it is proved on record that the insurance policy was not renewed after 1.6.2020, it was the sole negligence of the OPs and there is also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as a result of which OPs are liable to pay compensation, as prayed for in the consumer complaint.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs contended with vehemence that as it has come on record that the lien had already been created on the saving account of the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma due to which premium was not deducted from his saving account, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of the OPs and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs.
   5. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as Annexure C-6 i.e. Rules for PMSBY scheme makes it mandatory for the banks to provide auto debit facility for providing benefits to the insured and other mandates also makes it obligatory for the participant banks that the deduction of premium amount will be made when the auto debit option is given.  The relevant portion of the rules for PMSBY is reproduced below for ready reference :-

"Enrollment Modality/Period: The cover shall be for the one year period stretching from 1st June to 31st May for which option to join/pay by auto-debit from the designated savings bank account on the prescribed forms will be required to be given by 31st May of every year, extendable up to 31st August 2015 in the initial year.

Premium: Rs.12/- per annum per member. The premium will be deducted from the account holder's savings bank account through 'auto debit' facility in one installment on or before 1st June of each annual coverage period under the scheme. However, in cases where auto debit takes place after 1st June, the cover shall commence from the first day of the month following the auto debit. Termination of cover: The accident cover for the member shall terminate on any of the following events and no benefit will be payable there under:

2) Closure of account with the Bank or insufficiency of balance to keep the insurance in force.

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 sole discretion of Insurance Company.

5) Participating banks will deduct the premium amount in the same month when the auto debit option is given, preferably in May of every year, and remit the amount due to the Insurance Company in that month itself. Administration:

The scheme, subject to the above, will be administered as per the standard procedure stipulated by the Insurance Company. The data flow process and data proforma will be provided separately.

It will be the responsibility of the participating bank to recover the appropriate annual premium from the account holders within the prescribed period through 'auto-debit' process.

Enrollment form/Auto-debit authorization in the prescribed proforma shall be obtained and retained by the participating bank. In case of claim, the Insurance Company may seek submission of the same. Insurance Company reserves the right to call for these documents at any point of time.

The acknowledgment slip may be made into an acknowledgment slip-cum-certificate of insurance. The experience of the scheme will be monitored on yearly basis for re-calibration etc., as may be necessary".

6. In the present consumer complaint, when it is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased Sh.Mantej Varma had availed PMSBY from the OP on payment of premium of ₹12/- and he was covered for accidental death to the sum of ₹2,00,000/- and that the premium was to be debited by OP-1 through auto debit facility on or before 1^st June of every year and it is also proved on record that the first premium of ₹12/- was also debited from the saving account of the deceased, as is also evident from the copy of statement of account (Annexure C-2), it was the duty of the OP to get the policy renewed by debiting the premium amount from the saving account of the deceased. 
7. As per the defence of the OPs, sufficient balance was not lying in the account of the deceased at the time when the earlier policy had lapsed on 31.5.2020, which stands falsified from the statement of account produced by the OPs themselves, which indicates that even on 13.4.2020 an amount of ₹11,657.35 was lying in the account of the deceased and on 4.5.2020 the sum was ₹11,716.35 and even in the month of August an amount of ₹11,807.35 was available in the account of the deceased.
8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that as there was lien on the savings account of the deceased due to which it was not possible for the OPs to debit any amount for the renewal of policy is concerned, the same is also not tenable as there is no reference of any lien in the statement of account, having been placed on record by both the parties, rather OP has only placed on record Annexure OP-1/2 showing that no effective amount was available in the account of the deceased as there was lien amount of ₹25,617.80 despite of the fact that an amount of ₹12,137.35 has been shown as clear balance amount even in this document.  Moreover, even the details of lien maintenance/lien history, which are available with the documents of the OPs (from page 20 to 22) further indicate that even if the total amount of lien be calculated, the same was less than the available balance amount shown in the statement of account of the deceased from which the said premium of ₹12/- could have been debited by the OPs.
9. Even if the matter be considered from another angle, the statement of account proves that OPs have debited ₹12/- on account of PMBSY on 21.10.2019 till 31.5.2020.  If the policy had already lapsed, OPs were expected to receive fresh application from the account holder and only then to debit this amount as per the mandate given in the rules (Annexure C-6).  This fact further goes to show that the OPs were under obligation to deduct the premium at its own without further request from the deceased.  Moreover, it seems that the OPs slept over the matter and only woke up when the death claim was lodged with it which accrued upon the death of the insured, Sh. Mantej Varma on 27.7.2020.  In this manner, when it has come on record that the OPs had failed to debit the amount of premium on 1.6.2020 and transfer the said amount to the insurance company for renewal of the premium amount for the policy w.e.f 1.6.2020 to 31.5.2021 and in the meantime on 27.7.2020 the deceased, Sh. Mantej Verma had expired, as a result of which no contract of insurance existed between the complainant and the insurance company, the OPs remained deficient in rendering proper service and the complainant is not to suffer for the fault on the part of the OPs. 
10. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., First Appeal No.608 of 2019 decided on 24.2.2021, in which it was held that it was for the bank to debit the premium by providing auto debit service under the PMSBY and in case the bank failed to debit the premium amount, it cannot escape from its liability.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Harvinder Puri Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr., First Appeal No.453 of 2013 decided on 24.10.2013 in which it was held that “where the amount in the savings bank account was lying, but, the lien was marked on the same, it could be very well said that legally there was no balance in the account of the complainant”.
12. However, the finding rendered in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the present consumer complaint as in the present consumer complaint, as discussed above, it has been proved that sufficient balance was lying in the savings account of the complainant and no lien was marked in the statement of account qua the account of the deceased nor the deceased was informed about the availability of insufficient funds in his account by the OPs. Hence, it is safe to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for not getting the insurance policy of the deceased, Sh. Mantej Varma renewed and, therefore, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay the insurance amount of ₹2,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 05.05.2021 till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 12/12/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member