Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Saurashtra Gramin Bank —Petitioner
versus
Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3346 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 28/06/2013 in Appeal No. 1297/2013 of the State Commission Gujarat)
Decided on 25.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If the Bank is negligent in not deducting the premium amount and sending the policy document to the Insurance company, Bank is liable for payment of compensation, costs etc.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Revision – Section 21 – The Respondent No.2 had launched a scheme of insurance i.e. Group Personal Accident BimaYojna, for account holders of petitioner Bank - Against the premium of Rs.100/- the Insurance Company had offered compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the policy holder – Facts reveal that policy document was signed by the deceased husband of the respondent 1 on 21.7.2008 , but was not submitted to the Bank – On 1.8.2008, he met with an accident and later died on 10.8.2008 – On 9.8.2008, the signed form was submitted in the Bank at late hours and hence Rs.100/- could not be debited to the account of the deceased – Claim made by the complainant to the insurance company was repudiated – Hence, complaint was filed which was allowed in part – Appeal was filed by the Bank which was dismissed – Hence, the present revision – Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the record – From a perusal of the documents, there is deficiency of service by petitioner/ Bank in not sending the policy documents to the insurance company in time, not deducting the premium amount and hence the orders of the State Commission is modified to the extent of amount payable to Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Result: Revision petition is disposed of with modification.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Saurashtra Gramin Bank against the order dated 28.06.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.1297 of 2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 Insurance Company had launched a scheme of insurance i.e. Group Personal Accident Bima Yojna, for account holders of petitioner Bank. Against the premium of Rs.100/- the Insurance Company had offered compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the policy holder. It is the case of petitioner that on 21.7.2008, the deceased husband of the complainant took the form from the branch, however, did not submit the same prior to 09.08.2008. On 28.07.2009, the deceased visited the bank but without submitting the form took the same back with him to show it to some of his relative. On 01.08.2008, the account holder (i.e. husband of the complainant) met with an accident. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 09.08.2008, after almost eight days of the said accident, the form was submitted. However, since it was submitted after office hours on 09.08.2008 which was a Saturday, the amount of Rs.100/- towards premium could not be debited from the account holder’s account. On 11.08.2008, the petitioner bank was intimated of the death of the account holder. Thus, in the given circumstances i.e. after the death of the account holder, the insurance cover could not be extended/granted to him. It is the case of the respondent No.1/complainant that her husband had filled and submitted the form under this scheme on 21.7.2008 with the petitioner bank along with two other account holders namely, Rasik Gordhanbhai Dobariya and Harjibhai Bhanderi who also submitted the form on the same date. The applications were listed at Serial No.351, 352 & 353. Application No.352 was of the husband of the complainant. However, the bank did not forward these applications to the Insurance Company in time. Meanwhile, the husband of the complainant met with an accident on 01.08.2008 and later on he died on 10.8.2008. The intimation of death was given to the bank on 11.8.2008. As against this, the claim of the petitioner/ opposite party bank is that the husband of the complainant came to the bank on 21.7.2008 and filled the form, but did not deposit it the same day and took it back that he will consult one of his relatives. Later on, the form was submitted on 09.08.2008 in the evening so that the bank could not deduct Rs.100/- premium for the policy from the account of the account holder. The bank was to send the form to the Insurance Company on 11.08.2008, however, material information of death of the husband of the complainant was received by the bank and therefore, no further action was taken on application form.
3. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jamnagar (in short ‘the District Forum’) being consumer complaint no.279 of 2009. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party bank on same grounds as mentioned above. The District Forum, however allowed the complaint as under:-
“The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 Saurashtra Gramin Bank Jamngar Gramin bank Dhutarpur branch is hereby directed to pay Rs.5 lacs with the interest @ of 6% from 20.8.2009 and Rs.2000/- towards shock and suffering and Rs.1500/- towards cost.”
4. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the opposite party bank preferred an appeal bearing No.1297 of 2013 before the State Commission, which was dismissed by order dated 28.6.2013 passed by the State Commission.
5. Hence the present revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the husband of the complainant had visited the bank branch on 28.7.2008 and filled up the form. However, he did not deposit the same saying that he would consult one of his relatives. The form
