ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

First Appeal No.365 of 2023 Date of institution : 30.05.2023 Reserved on : 18.11.2024 Date of decision : 25.11.2024 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mahavir Marg, Kapurthala through its Manager (Legal), Regional Office SCO No.109-111, Sector

17-D, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Bimla Rani w/o late Sh. Prem Chand R/o H.No.341, Kazi Mohri Batela, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Respondent No.1/complainant

2. Punjab Gramin Bank, Hathi Gate, Batala, District Gurdaspur through its Manager.

….Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 First Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur in CC/168/2019 Quorum:-

Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-

For the appellant : Sh. B.S.Taunque, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh. Sandeep Godara, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP No.1 against the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was accepted and following relief was granted:-

“13. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insurance claim to the complainant as per insurance policy under PMSBY within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders, failing which Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the insurance claim alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.5.2019 till its realization. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5,000/- in lump sum for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.”

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

4. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the husband of the complainant; namely, Prem Chand,(DLA) was having saving account No.84630300509765 with OP No.2-bank and got insured himself with OP No.1 under an insurance scheme launched by Govt. of India under the name and style of ‘Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojna’(PMSBY). The installments of premium were debited from his said account from time to time as per policy of the Government. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant met with an accident and expired on 16.01.2018. His post mortem was conducted at Civil Hospital Jalandhar on 17.01.2018 and also a criminal case was registered in this regard vide FIR No.0012 dated 16.01.2018 U/s 279/304-A IPC at P.S. Division No.8 Police Commissionerate at Jalandhar against Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh resident of Village Para P.S. Maqsudan Distt. Jalandhar. At the time of alleged accident, the age of the husband of the complainant was 64 years but in the post mortem report, his age had wrongly been mentioned as 65 years. The complainant submitted the death claim with OPs for grant of Rs.2 lakh under the said insurance scheme, but the said claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 21.12.2018 issued by the insurance company on the ground that the age of the DLA was 71 years. These observations regarding age of the deceased raised by insurance company are totally false, imaginary and not sustainable in the eyes of law as the date of birth of the deceased was 24.03.1954, which has been duly mentioned in his birth certificate. The complainant approached the OPs time and again with the oral as well as written request for the payment of death claim to the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other on