SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2121

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, President, BIMLA KUMARI, Member
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
JASWANT SINGH – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 284/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chaitana Jain, Kapil Chawla
For the Respondents: Lochan Rajput, Shaurya Kapoor, Shahana Parveen

Bank and insurer jointly liable for deficiency where bank as agent deducts premium from joint account for insurance scheme but fails to forward enrolment data to insurer, causing claim rejection despite insured's bona fide belief in coverage.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency in service - Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana Scheme - Joint bank account holders enrolled offline for insurance cover - Premium deducted twice from joint account but bank failed to forward enrolment details to insurer - No record of second holder with insurer led to claim rejection - Bank acted as agent of insurer - Principal liable for agent's fault and non-disclosure of material facts - Both bank and insurer held jointly liable for deficiency in not generating policy, informing insured, and settling claim - Sum insured Rs.2,00,000/-, compensation Rs.30,000/-, litigation costs Rs.11,000/- payable in equal shares. (Paras 11-15, 19-24)

(B) Insurance law - Utmost good faith - Agents bound to disclose full relevant information to insured - Principal liable for agent's acts within scope of authority. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
Joint account holder enrolled spouse under government insurance scheme through bank - Premium Rs.330/- deducted for two years from joint account - Policy documents issued but claim rejected post death due to no data uploaded by bank to insurer - District Commission held both parties deficient, directed joint payment - Insurer appealed.

Findings of Court:
No evidence placed by insurer that second joint holder not covered - Bank deficient in forwarding details - Both parties liable jointly and severally - District order upheld.

Issues: Whether rejection of claim justified absent proof of non-coverage of joint holder; whether deficiency in service by bank and insurer established.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent evidence excluding joint holder from coverage where premium deducted from joint account and enrolment forms submitted, rejection unjustified - Deficiency proved by failure to upload data, generate policy, and communicate - Appellate court upholds lower findings absent perversity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. complainant's enrollment and premium payment for deceased wife's pmjjby policy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history and evidence submission. (Para 5 , 6 , 17)
3. bank's defense: acted as agent, blames insurer. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. insurer's defense: no data received, no coverage for wife. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. complainant's rebuttal denying insurers' claims. (Para 16)
6. district commission finds deficiency by both ops. (Para 18 , 19)
7. precedents on bank-insurer liability and good faith. (Para 20)

PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. Complainant submits that his wife namely Smt. Surinder Kaur, who was the joint account holder of SB Account No. 90462010100330 with him which was being maintained with OP No. 1 Bank at its Tilak Nagar, New Delhi branch, expired on 12.06.2017. The complainant had applied for Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana Scheme (for short the 'Scheme') in the name of his wife Smt. Surinder Kaur through off-line through OP No. 1, in which complainant was her nominee. In furtherance of the above noted Scheme, the annual premium of Rs.330/- has been paid twice from the joint account of complainant and his wife and the policy document was issued by OP No. 2. The complainant had completed all the formalities including submission of death certificate of his wife for taking the claim of his deceased wife in the Scheme and also filled up the revised form as desired by OP No.1. In the said form, OP No. 1 had put its seal and its representative also signed the same.

2. Complainant submits that OP No.2 has malafidely and illegally rejected the claim of complainant due to the reason that no data is available with it for the above deceased policy holder under the Scheme. The proposal being accepted by OP No. 2 and charging of the premium for the same is clear evidence that the policy stood in the name of complainant, hence the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the claim of complainant, being the nominee of his deceased wife.

3. Complainant submits that in order to get his dues under the Scheme/Policy, he also sent a legal notice to both the OPs through his counsel and OP No. 2 has given reply thereto vide letter dated 30.07.2018 by stating that "We have called for the details from Syndicate Bank Corporate Office Bangalore, on hearing from them we will revert back you" but till date no response is given by OP No.2. The OPs are harassing the complainant and he is suffering due to joint acts of OPs. Hence the present complaint. The following relief are claimed by the complainant:

a. To direct the OPs to pay the claim of the complainant against policy No. 900100001.

b. To direct the OPs to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment due to their deficiency and negligence in services and also to pay litigation charges amounting to Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant.

c. Any other order which this Commission deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.

4. The following documents are attached with the complaint:

1. Acknowledgement Slip of Certificate of Insurance under PMJJBY Scheme issued by OP No.1;

2. Death certificate of Smt. Surinder Kaur

3.Consent-cum-Declaration Form under the PMJJBY Scheme dated 06.05.2016;

4. Claim Form under the PMJJBY Scheme submitted by complainant to OP No.1 on 20.07.2017 against Policy No.900100001;

5. Statement of a/c of OP No.1 showing deduction of Rs. 330/- towards premium of PMJJBY Scheme;

6. Letter dated 10.05.2018 sent by OP No.2 to OP No.1 thereby rejecting the claim under the PMJJBY Scheme;

7. Inter office Memo dated 8.6.2018 intra department of OP No.1 informing of rejection of claim in r/o late Smt. Surinder Kaur;

8. Legal notice dated 23.7.2018 sent by complainant to OPs 1 & 2

5. Upon admission of the complaint on 27.09.2018, notice was sent to OPs 1 & 2. Both the OPs filed their respective written statements.

6. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top