Disputes involving disputed questions of fact and allegations of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act are not appropriate for adjudication under the Writ Jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Order On Board

02.01.2023

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for following reliefs:-

(10.1) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of insured amount under Schemes i.e. Pradhan Mantri Jeevan jyoti Beema Yozna and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yozna, payable to the petitioner on the death of her mother, who was covered under the scheme and had opted the schemes.

(10.2)This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take decision over the claim of the petitioner.

(10.3) Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that he does not press the claim raised by the petitioner so far as the benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Beema Yozna Scheme as the said benefits would only be applicable in a case where the Policy Holder dies arising out of an accident. It was not the case herein.

3. The matter pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying the amount payable on a Insurance Policy Holder upon his death to his family members. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. The deceased died on 16.05.2021. The petitioner moved an application for benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Jeevan jyoti Beema Yozna Scheme which was not being entertained by the respondents which led to filing of the present writ petition.

4. Upon notice, the respondents have submitted their reply and in their reply, the respondents have categorically made a statement that beyond a period of 13.05.2019 for want of sufficient fund in the account of the deceased, the insurance policy could not be renewed. Therefore, the deceased cannot be brought within the ambit of the Policy Holder and it was for this reason that the petitioner was not made any payment under the said Scheme.

5. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Bank drew the attention of the bank statement of the petitioner so far as the month of May 2019 is concerned and it has been reflected that in the Month of May 2019, there was only a balance of Rs. 245/- in the account of the petitioner, whereas for the renewal of the Policy, the minimum premium amount required is Rs. 330/-.

6. Given the said specific stand that the respondent No. 4 has raised, this Court is of the opinion that the matter now becomes a disputed question of fact as also necessary evidence would be required to be adduced on either side to establish their case. Since the petitioner is claiming the benefits from the Insurance Policy of the respondents- Bank, she would squarely fall within the definition of a consumer as is defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the allegations made by the petitioner so far as not making auto deduction from the bank account of the deceased also would fall within the ambit of “Deficiency in Service” under the Consumer Protection Act.

7. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of dispute raised by the petitioner is not one which could be adjudicated or decided invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when there are disputed questions of facts involved.

8. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail such other remedies available to him, the present writ petition as of now stands disposed of.