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” 6 ^th and 7^th 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” 6^th and 7^th Floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Sector 12, City 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 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 A