DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 97/2018

Date of Institution : 30.07.2018

Date of Decision : 05.08.2019

 

Nasib Kaur widow of Harnek Singh, resident of Village Sehraj, Tehsil and District Barnala.                    …Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 2090-B, The Mall, Bathinda-151001. 

2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Sehjra, District Barnala-148101.

3. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office No. 6, Jehangir Bldg. 1st Floor, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.  

…Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Present: Sh. Manpreet Singh Bhotna counsel for complainant.

Sh. N.K. Singla counsel for opposite party No. 1 & 3.

Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for opposite party No. 2.  

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

3.Smt. Manisha : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

 

1.    The complainant namely Nasib Kaur has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the Act) against United India Insurance Company and others (In short the opposite parties).

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that Harnek Singh was the husband of complainant and was member of master policy No. 0206004215P999990008 under Pardhan Manti Suraksha Bima Yogna as the premium amount auto-debit from the saving account No. 50100104619572 of Harnek Singh maintained with the opposite party No. 2 and acknowledgement cum certificate of insurance was duly issued by opposite party No. 2 under the seal of the bank vide reference No. 1577467 on 10.7.2015 and the coverage amount of the said policy is Rs. 2,00,000/-. 

3. It is further alleged that on 12.1.2018 at about 7:30 PM when Harnek Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh were 50 Karms back from the drain bridge on G.T.Road, Mehal Kalan to Village Sehjra, were coming on motor cycle Bajaj Platina No. PB-31C-6613 from Mehal Kalan to Village Sehjra suddenly some dogs came in front of the motor cycle and due to which motor cycle struck with the dogs and as a result Harnek Singh and his son Jaswinder Singh fell down and Harnek Singh fell in the dugs on the road side and suffered the injuries and was expired on 13.1.2018 at Village Sehjra. The complainant approached to the opposite party No. 2 and submitted all the necessary documents and requested to pay the insurance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but they did not pay any heed towards the request and ultimately they did not do anything in that case. On this, the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1 telephonically but opposite party No. 1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and said that the opposite party No. 2 can do the needful. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 3 and complainant received a registered letter in which the opposite party No. 3 demanded some documents and the same are sent by the complainant vide registered post dated 16.4.2018. The opposite parties every time put off the mater on one pretext or the other and ultimately on July 2018 the complainant received a registered AD dated 27.6.2018 from the opposite party No. 3 with the comments that this claim will be treated as no claim due to the following reason:-

"As per passbook and HDFC Bank confirmation:- Late Harnek Singh was covered under PMSBY scheme as per HDFC passbook and respective bank confirmation where a premium of Rs. 12/- was not deducted for policy period 2017-18 and the enrollment under the policy stood terminated for PMSBY policy 2017-18"

4. It is further alleged that if there is any alleged non-deduction of Rs. 12/- as per the version of opposite party No. 3 then for this conduct of opposite party No. 2 is legally liable and there was sufficient funds available in the said account of deceased Harnek Singh. The complainant Nasib Kaur is an old age lady about 72 years and is suffering from various ailments. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) To pay the death insurance claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- of Harnek Singh alongwith upto date interest till realization.  

ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.           

iii) To pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.  

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 and 3 filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of jurisdiction, maintainability, clean hands and concealment of true facts, complaint is frivolous and vexatious etc.  

6. On merits, it is denied that Harnek Singh was the member of Policy No. 0206004215P999990008 under Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna and said Harnek Singh was not covered under the said scheme. Further, Rs. 12/- was not deducted as per the acknowledgment cum certificate of insurance for the policy period 2017-18. It is admitted that a legal notice dated 8.2.2018 was served upon the answering opposite parties and in response to that opposite party No. 3 sent letter dated 27.3.2018 to submit the required documents within 15 days but they did not receive the same. The opposite party No. 2 sent the required details vide email dated 14.6.2018 alongwith HDFC Bank statement mentioning that there is no debit in the account towards premium of SBY Policy, so the claim has been rightly treated as "no claim". They prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

7. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of no locus-standi, cause of action, concealment of material facts, no consumer dispute etc. 

8. On merits, it is admitted that deceased Harnek Singh submitted an application to purchase Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna through opposite party No. 2 and they issued acknowledgment in this regard. It was duly informed him that this policy is not applicable after completion of age of 70 years. They sent the said application to United India Insurance Company Divisional Office, Bathinda but they did not accept the application and the premium has not been deducted from the saving account of deceased Harnek Singh. Further, employees of the Bank never issued any insurance policy certificate in favour of deceased Harnek Singh. Deceased Harnek Singh never executed or signed debit voucher in favour of the bank nor he given any written request to deduct Rs. 12/- from his saving account as premium. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

9. In support of her case, the complainant at the time of filing the present complaint also tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CW-/A, copy of bank passbook Ex.C-1, copy of acknowledgment cum certificate of insurance Ex.C-2, copy of form of death certificate Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-4/A and Ex.C-4/B, copy of letter dated 27.3.2018 Ex.C-5, envelop Ex.C-5/A, copy of claim form of PMSMY Ex.C-6, postal receipts Ex.C-6/A, copy of discharge voucher of PMSBY Ex.C-6/C, copy of acknowledgment Ex.C-6/D, copy of DDR Ex.C-6/E, copy of Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.C-6/F, copies of details of account Ex.C-6/G to Ex.C-6/I, copy of letter dated 27.6.2018 Ex.C-7, envelop Ex.C-7/A, acknowledgment Ex.C-7/B.  

10. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 & 3 tendered into evidence copy of statement of account of Harnek Singh Ex.O.P1.3/1, copy of email dated 12.5.2018 Ex.O.P1.3/2, copies of email dated 14.6.2018 Ex.O.P1.3/3 & Ex.O.P1.3/4, affidavit of Baldev Singh Senior Divisional Manager Ex.O.P1.3/5 and closed the evidence.  

11. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Manish Kumar Ex.O.P-2/1, copy of account opening form Ex.O.P-2/2, copy of policy rules Ex.O.P-2/3 and closed the evidence. 

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties have also been gone through.  

13. To prove her case the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.CW1/A which is nothing but word to word repetition of the complaint. Ex.C-1 is the copy of bank passbook and Ex.C-2 is copy of acknowledgment cum certificate of insurance, which shows the consenting and authorizing for auto-debit from specific saving bank account to join the PMSBY. Ex.C-3 is copy of death certificate. Apart from this complainant has placed on record copy of letter dated 27.3.2018 which shows that the insurance company has demanded the required documents from the complainant. Ex.C-6/G to Ex.C-6/I are the copies of account statement of complainant, but there is nowhere mentioned that Rs. 12/- has been deducted for the above said policy. 

14. On the other hand in order to rebut the case of complainant the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record detailed affidavit of Manish Kumar Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Branch Sehjra in which he submitted that on receiving the application from the deceased Harnek Singh it is informed to him that this policy is not applicable to him as he entered the age of 70 years and on persisting of deceased Harnek Singh the said application sent to Insurance Company, Bathinda but they did not accept the same and due to this reason the amount of Rs. 12/- as premium has not been deducted from the saving account of deceased Harnek Singh. Only the acknowledgment regarding the receipt of application was issued. He further submitted that the duty of the Bank started from when any customer executed a debit voucher in favour of the Bank, but in the present case the same has not been done. Further, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record copy of details of scheme Ex.O.P-2/3 vide which in the eligibility condition it is mentioned that the saving bank account holders of the participating banks aged between 18 years (completed) and 70 years (age nearer birthday) who gave consent to join auto-debit. But in the present case the complainant has failed to prove on record that the deceased Harnek Singh does not exceed the age of 70 years. 

15. The opposite parties No. 1 & 3 have placed on record an affidavit of Baldev Singh Senior Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Co, Bathinda Ex.O.P1.3/5 in which it is submitted that the deceased Harnek Singh was not the member of above said policy and was not covered under PMSBY scheme as per the opposite party No. 2 Bank passbook and respective bank confirmation where premium of Rs. 12/- was not deducted as per acknowledgment cum certificate of insurance Ex.O.P1.3/1, as such the claim has been treated as no claim. Further, perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to placed on record to prove that Rs. 12/- has been debited from the saving bank account of deceased Harnek Singh. Even, at the time of arguments this Forum asked the Ld. Counsel for complainant to show the deduction of Rs. 12/- from the saving bank account of deceased Harnek Singh, but he has no answer regarding this deduction. 

16. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has filed an application dated 18.7.2019 alongwith birth certificate of deceased Harnek Singh for additional evidence. We are of the view that  when the case was fixed for written arguments by the complainant since 24.1.2019 there is no need to allow the complainant to lead additional evidence at this stage as the complainant had availed  number of opportunities to file rejoinder alongwith documents if any.  Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 

17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

       5th Day of August 2019 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member

 

(Manisha)

Member