JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, President.—Appellant-State Bank of India has approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “The Act, 1986”) to challenge impugned order dated 08.03.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, “Commission”), Patiala (in short, “The District Commission”), with the prayer that the impugned order is contrary to facts and law and same has been passed without taking into consideration the evidence and arguments of the opposite parties.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint, are that deceased Smt. Beena Garg, who was mother of complainant-Robin Garg, had allegedly opted for two Insurance Policies bearing Master Policy No.240600/42/15/8200000061 under “Pardhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna” (hereinafter to be called as “PMSBY”) with National Insurance Company Limited for premium of Rs.12/- per annum and second Insurance Policy No.76001000135 under “Pardhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojna” (hereinafter to be called as “PMJBY”) with SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No.2, for premium of Rs.330/- per annum, which was covered under death policy. Said Beena Garg expired on 17.02.2016. The complainant, being nominee of the deceased, approached the appellant-Bank and the Insurance Company, claiming the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, but no response was there. On getting no response, the complaint under Section 12 of The Act, 1986 was filed before the District Commission; which was partly allowed by awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation and a direction was issued to the opposite parties to examine the matter for the purpose of settlement of the claim and thereafter to release the payment to the claimant. The claimant was also held entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in case the amount was found to be payable, from the date of filing of the complainant till the payment.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission dated 08.03.2019, the appellant-State Bank of India has filed the present appeal, by raising various grounds.

5. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal Advocate with Mr. Y.R. Mangla, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is against law and facts as the complainant was not entitled for the amount, which has been awarded; as mother of the complainant was not insured under PMJBY, because the amount of premium was not paid by the deceased mother of the complainant. It has been further argued that this fact has not been taken into consideration that the deceased mother of the complainant applied for two policies i.e. PMSBY and PMJBY, but she gave consent only for debit of Rs.12/- as premium from her account. The deceased mother of the complainant was issued policy i.e. PMSBY, whereas she did not agree for debit of Rs.330/- from her account towards premium of PMJBY. Accordingly, the appellant-Bank did not debit the premium amount of PMJBY from the account of the deceased mother of the complainant. It has further been argued that the Acknowledgement Slip-cum-Certificate of Insurance was issued, but the official of the Bank forgot to take back the Acknowledgement Slip-cum-Certificate of Insurance. At the end, learned counsel for the appellant submits that all these facts were raised before the District Commission, but the same were not taken into consideration.

6. Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 submits that the insurance cover under the group insurance scheme was not automatic, but it was optional. The Consent-cum-Declaration Form was the basis for assessment of risk. Only the proposer was required to be admitted into the scheme on the basis of Proposal Form, along with the requisite premium/ co