Issue:
Bug: [BUG] Fix Deserialization error in Pm auth core



### Feature Description

Currently, if we try to link accounts twice in pm auth flow, the `/exchange` call fails due to a deserialization error.
This happens because of extra entries created in DB during mandate save pm flow.

### Possible Implementation

Need to check on pm data first before deserialization.

### Have you spent some time checking if this feature request has been raised before?

- [X] I checked and didn't find a similar issue

### Have you read the Contributing Guidelines?

- [X] I have read the [Contributing Guidelines](https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch/blob/main/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md)

### Are you willing to submit a PR?

Yes, I am willing to submit a PR!

Pull request description:
## Type of Change
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [x] Bugfix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [ ] Refactoring
- [ ] Dependency updates
- [ ] Documentation
- [ ] CI/CD

## Description
<!-- Describe your changes in detail -->
Earlier, the mandate request was inserting another entry in payment_methods table which interfered with pm_auth when running it again. The `/auth/exchange` call was failing due to this. 
Have fixed the logic in pm_auth to be more specific.

### Additional Changes

- [ ] This PR modifies the API contract
- [ ] This PR modifies the database schema
- [ ] This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables

<!--
Provide links to the files with corresponding changes.

Following are the paths where you can find config files:
1. `config`
2. `crates/router/src/configs`
3. `loadtest/config`
-->


## Motivation and Context
<!--
Why is this change required? What problem does it solve?
If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here.

If you don't have an issue, we'd recommend starting with one first so the PR
can focus on the implementation (unless it is an obvious bug or documentation fix
that will have little conversation).
-->


## How did you test it?
<!--
Did you write an integration/unit/API test to verify the code changes?
Or did you test this change manually (provide relevant screenshots)?
-->
Can be tested via SDK
1. Test Pm auth flow (with `  "setup_future_usage": "off_session"` passed in `payment_create` and `customer_acceptance` passed in `payment_confirm`)
2. Retest the Pm auth flow

## Checklist
<!-- Put an `x` in the boxes that apply -->

- [x] I formatted the code `cargo +nightly fmt --all`
- [x] I addressed lints thrown by `cargo clippy`
- [ ] I reviewed the submitted code
- [ ] I added unit tests for my changes where possible


Testing:

Can be tested via SDK
1. Test Pm auth flow (with `  "setup_future_usage": "off_session"` passed in `payment_create` and `customer_acceptance` passed in `payment_confirm`)
2. Retest the Pm auth flow

Patch:
diff --git a/crates/router/src/core/pm_auth.rs b/crates/router/src/core/pm_auth.rs
index 64c1918c5e5..47f843030ee 100644
--- a/crates/router/src/core/pm_auth.rs
+++ b/crates/router/src/core/pm_auth.rs
@@ -346,7 +346,9 @@ async fn store_bank_details_in_payment_methods(
     > = HashMap::new();
 
     for pm in payment_methods {
-        if pm.payment_method == Some(enums::PaymentMethod::BankDebit) {
+        if pm.payment_method == Some(enums::PaymentMethod::BankDebit)
+            && pm.payment_method_data.is_some()
+        {
             let bank_details_pm_data = crypto_operation::<serde_json::Value, masking::WithType>(
                 &(&state).into(),
                 type_name!(storage::PaymentMethod),