State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sonu Dhull vs Life Insurance Corporatio And Another on 27 October, 2022
APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022
SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 10.10.2022
Date of final hearing: 27.10.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2022
APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF
Sonu Dhull, aged about 34 years son of Shri Dalbir Singh, resident of near
Shiv Mandir, Village Padha, Sub Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal (Aadhar
Card No.781376454084).
(Through: Shri Bhim Singh, Advocate)
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office-I, Pension @
Group Schemes Unit, "Jeevan Prakash" 6th and 7th Floor, 25,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Sector 12, City
Center, Karnal.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN, PRESIDENT
MS. MANJULA, MEMBER
Present: Shri Bhim Singh, counsel for the appellant.
PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.
ORDER
1. For the reasons stated therein, the miscellaneous application is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the complainant, namely, Sonu Dhull against the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office-1, Pension @ Group Schemes Unit, "Jeevan Prakash" 6th and 7th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Sector 12, City DISMISSED Page 1 of 7 APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. Center, Karnal-opposite parties, for challenging the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal, whereby complaint preferred by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was found to be devoid of any merits and accordingly dismissed.
3. The case of the complainant was that the Government of India had formulated a scheme "Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna" and the mother of the complainant, namely, Sheela Devi applied under the said scheme. The opposite parties deducted Rs.330/- per annum from the account of his mother and as per the norms of the said scheme, the death insured amount was Rs.2,00,000/-. The opposite parties deducted Rs.330/- every year, i.e. on 16.06.2015, 25.05.2016 and 22.05.2017 from the bank account of his mother maintained in Punjab National Bank, Branch Padha, District Karnal. In the said policy, complainant was nominee of insured Sheela Devi. At the time of purchasing the said policy, the age of mother of the complainant was about 45 years as per the Voter Card and Ration Card. On 17.10.2017, the mother of the complainant passed away. After her death, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to pass the death claim of his mother besides submitting all the necessary documents. The opposite parties set over the matter on one pretext or the other and finally on 16.02.2019 declined the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per date of birth mentioned in Aadhar Card, the insurance policy was not DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. valid. The date of birth of father of complainant, namely, Dalbir Singh was 06.05.1967. The mother of the complainant was younger than her husband but due to some inadvertence the concerned Computer Operator had wrongly entered the year of birth of mother of the complainant, which was 1963. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to consider the date of birth as per the documents submitted by his mother at the time of opening the bank account but the opposite parties refused to do so. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties but it did not yield any result. As such, there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it was pleaded that the scheme of "Pradan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna" offered One Year Renewable Term Insurance Cover to the eligible Savings Bank Account holders through Banks as per circular dated 01.06.2015 under which the Bank would act as the Master Policy Holder (MPH), who would enter into MOU with LIC and MPH responsible for enrollment of members as per rules and eligibility criteria. The MPH was required to ensure age eligibility criteria for coverage, recovering premium through "Auto Debit" preserving the enrollment forms, transfer of data in the format prescribed, remit appropriate and reconciled premium to LIC on time, receiving the DISMISSED Page 3 of 7 APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. death intimations and submissions of relevant claim papers to the designated LIC office. All Savings Bank Account holders in the age group of 18 years and 50 years as on 01.06.2015 were eligible to join the scheme. The premium was however not deducted by the opposite parties. The Master Policy Holder (MPH) under the PMJJBY scheme was Punjab National Bank, who deducted the premium from the bank account of the account holder Smt. Sheela Devi as per rules of scheme. The concerned bank was not arrayed as a party to the present complaint. As per the rules of the scheme, age criteria to become member, was 18 to 50 years. As per document submitted by the Master Policy Holder i.e. Punjab National Bank, the age of deceased Sheela Devi at that time of becoming a member under the PMJJBY scheme, was more than 50 years, her date of birth being 01.01.1963. Thus, her age was 52 years 5 months and 15 days as on 16.06.2015 when she was enrolled under the said scheme. The claim papers received by the opposite parties on 15.05.2018 from the Master Policy Holder and the reasons for rejection of the claim was intimated vide letter dated 27.06.2018. Thus, the deceased did not fulfill the basic eligibility conditions of the scheme. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.
5. In support of his case, the complainant filed his affidavit Exhibit CW1/A besides tendering documents Exhibit C1 to Exhibit C-12. In additional evidence, the complainant tendered documents Exhibit DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. C-13 to Exhibit C-16. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit (Exhibit OPW1/A) of Puneet Kumar, Manager besides tendering documents Exhibit OP1 to Exhibit OP3.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the record, the District Consumer Commission held the complaint to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed the same. .
7. According to counsel for the appellant, the Government of India had formulated a scheme "Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna" and mother of the complainant, namely, Sheela Devi applied under the said policy. As per the norms of the policy, the opposite parties had been deducting Rs.330/- per annum from the account of his mother and the death insured amount was Rs.2,00,000/-. In the said policy, the complainant was nominee of insured Sheela Devi. At the time of purchasing the said policy, the age of mother of the complainant was about 45 years as reflected in the Voter Card and Ration Card and she died on 17.10.2017. After the death of his mother, the complainant being the nominee, approached the opposite parties and requested for passing the death claim. The opposite parties declined the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per date of birth, mentioned in Aadhar Card, the insurance policy was not valid. The date of birth of father of the complainant, namely, Dalbir Singh was 06.05.1967, however, due to some inadvertence the concerned Computer Operator had wrongly entered the year of birth of mother of the complainant as 1963. As such, the opposite parties had wrongly denied the claim set up by the complainant. DISMISSED Page 5 of 7
APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
8. Having heard counsel for the appellant, the State Commission finds that Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) scheme was launched by the Government of India to the eligible savings bank account holders. The mother of the complainant was also the account holder in the Punjab National Bank, who was to act as a master policy holder (MPH). All savings bank account holders in the age group of 18 years to 50 years were eligible to avail the said scheme. According to the death certificate Exhibit C5, the mother of the complainant expired on 17.10.2017. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the account holder was not entitled under the said scheme as she was more than 50 years old at the time of taking the scheme. As per Aadhar Card of Sheela Devi Exhibit C12, her date of birth was 01.01.1963. At the time of taking the policy, the age of deceased Sheela Devi was more than 50 years. Complainant had also placed reliance on the copies of Ration Cards Ex.C13 and Ex.C14. In Ration Card Ex.C13, there was overwriting in the column of age of Dalbir Singh as well as Sheela Devi whereas in ration card Ex.C14, the name of Sheela Devi stood deleted. Except these documents, there is no other relevant document on the file to prove the exact age of Sheela Devi. The complainant also relied upon his own school certificate Ex.C15, PAN Card and Aadhar Card Ex.C16 besides Voter card of Sheela Devi Ex.C11, Aadhar card of Dalbir Singh Ex.C6 but these documents do not conclusively establish that the mother of the complainant was less than 50 years of age. DISMISSED Page 6 of 7
APPEAL NO.547 OF 2022 27.10.2022 SONU DHULL VS. LIFE INSURANCE COORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.
9. In the bank account pass book Ex.C4, it was Dalbir Singh husband of deceased Sheela Devi, who was her nominee. The complainant has nowhere alleged that Dalbir Singh was no more. As such, he could not be considered as nominee of his mother Sheela Devi.
10. As per Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna (PMJJBY) scheme, the concerned bank was the Master Policy Holder and premium also deducted from the said bank account. Despite the same, the complainant did not implead the said bank as a party to the complaint.
11. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, dismissed.
12. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
13. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN) PRESIDENT (MANJULA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 27.10.2022 DR DISMISSED Page 7 of 7