DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 384/2016
Date of Institution : 11.02.2016
Date of Decision : 22.05.2017
Darshan Singh aged about 58 years son of Karnail Singh resident of Village Chhiniwal Kalan, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. AXIS Bank Ltd., Aggarsain Chowk, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
2. Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No. 701 to 703, 7th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27, M.G. Road, Banglore-560001.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. DS Dhaliwal counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte.
Sh. PS Aulakh counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is having a Saving Bank Account No. 418010100056513 with the AXIS Bank Limited Barnala (In short opposite party No. 1) for the last many years. On 18.11.2009 the complainant alongwith his friend Joginder Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of Village Chhiniwal Kalan approached the opposite party No. 1 and deposited an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-.
2. The complainant has alleged that however the Manager of the opposite party No. 1 has asked him that if he deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Fixed Deposit for a period of six years then he would get Rs. 1,50,000/- after six years. On this the complainant asked the Manager of the opposite party No. 1 to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his Saving Account for investing in fixed deposit for six years. It is further alleged that thereafter opposite party No. 1 got signed some blank papers from the complainant and after sometime the complainant also received some papers and on receiving the same the complainant thought that opposite party No. 1 sent him the Fixed Deposit Papers and by considering these papers as Fixed Deposit Papers the complainant kept all the papers with him.
3. It is further alleged that after six years the complainant in the last week of December 2015 alongwith Joginder Singh approached the opposite party No. 1 and demanded his Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- but the opposite party No. 1 told that the said amount has been invested in the Met Life Insurance Company Limited and there is no provision of refunding the amount and further told that the complainant had to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for three years continuously. Since the complainant failed to deposit the said amount and deposit only Rs. 1,00,000/- and due to this reason the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- or amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- cannot be refunded to the complainant. It is also alleged that thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 1 a number of times and also contacted to the opposite party No. 2 but invain and ultimately opposite party refused to refund the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 1,50,000/-. Hence it is alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 not appeared despite service, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte.
5. The opposite party No. 2 filed written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of limitation, maintainability, complaint is vague and malafide, not a consumer dispute and never requested for cancellation of policy and the policy lapsed.
6. On merits it is submitted that the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions of their product “Met Smart Plus” had voluntarily applied for a policy by filling the Proposal Forum dated 25.11.2009. The complainant offered to pay a Modal Premium of Rs. 50,000/- annually towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant had also signed Unit Linked Form and Benefit Illustration Form for the above mentioned policy. Upon receipt of the duly filled up Proposal Form alongwith initial premium against the application, the opposite party evaluated and processed the Proposal Forum on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued Policy bearing No. 20181031 on 30.12.2009 for the premium paying term of 48 years. All the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 5.6.2010 through speed post. Moreover, welcome letter clearly stated that in case the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the same and was entitled for cancellation in pursuance of Clause 36 of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that the complainant remitted the premium up to 30.12.2010 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter failed to remit further premium under the said policy and as a result the policy lapsed as per the terms of the policy contract. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of account statements of complainant Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8, copy of policy Ex.C-9, copy of receipt Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Motty John Ex.OP-2/1, copy of proposal form Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
10. Sh. DS Dhaliwal Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant at the outset has contended that the complainant was having a bank account with the AXIS Bank opposite party No. 1 for the last many years and was having faith in the employees of the opposite party No. 1. The learned counsel further contended that on 18.11.2009 complainant alongwith his friend Sh. Joginder Singh went to opposite party No. 1 and deposited Rs. 11,00,000/- in his account. However the Manager of opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that in case the complainant deposits Rs. 1,00,000/- then the same would become Rs. 1,50,000/- after six years and the employees of the opposite party No. 1 got signed some blank papers. Learned counsel for the complainant further contended that on this assurance the complainant deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- one time investment (FDR) for six years but after expiry of six years in December 2015 he approached opposite party No. 1 and demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- but the opposite party No. 1 told that the amount was invested in Met Life Insurance Company and there is no provision of any refund of the said amount. It was thus contended that the opposite party No. 1 misrepresented and cheated the complainant and have been deficient in rendering services and the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e maturity amount alongwith interest and compensation.
11. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the complainant voluntarily applied for the insurance policy for the purpose of investment and insurance by filling up the proposal form dated 25.11.2009. The learned counsel further contended that the complainant was offered to pay a modal premium of Rs. 50,000/- annually for the sum assured amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- under product Met Smart Plus. The learned counsel further contended that after knowing the terms and conditions and processing the proposal form the policy was issued on 30.12.2009 and thereafter the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 5.6.2010 through Speed Post stating therein that if the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same and was entitled for the cancellation of the policy. He also contended that the complainant has not exercised his right within the Free Look Period of 15 days. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the complainant further paid the premium up to 30.12.2010 i.e totaling Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter failed to remit further premium and as a result policy lapsed. Apart from this argument, the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the last premium was paid on 30.12.2010 and therefore cause of action has arisen from the said date and the present complaint is filed in 2016 which is barred by limitation under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act.
12. Learned counsel further contended that it is a case of contract between the parties and the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed and cannot travel beyond the intention of the parties as mentioned in the contract and finally prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
13. The first question is whether the complainant has made one time investment (FDR) or has bought Met Life Insurance Plan.
14. It is relevant to refer the proposal form Ex.OP-2/2 which shows the name of the insurance company as Met Life Insurance Company opposite party No. 2 and this proposal form has been duly filled and it has been signed by the proposer Darshan Singh complainant and name of the plan opted by the complainant is mentioned as Met Smart Plus. The declaration form further shows the signatures of Darshan Singh and it is of dated 25.11.2009. The amount shows to be paid was Rs. 50,000/-. Apart from the proposal form, Ex.C-9 is the policy document which shows that plan of insurance Met Smart Plus, premium amount of Rs. 50,000/-, payment mode annual and policy number 20181031 date of issue 30.12.2009 for sum assured of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Apart from this the complainant has also placed on file statement of account Ex.C-2 wherein on 18.11.2009 Rs. 50,000/- has shown to be debited and in the statement of account Ex.C-3 Rs. 50,000/- on 25.11.2010 has been shown to be debited from his account for Met Life Insurance Policy No. 20181031. It is also the case of the opposite party that after second payment of Rs. 50,000/- the complainant failed to pay the remaining installments.
15. Perusal of the documents placed on record do not show that the complainant has made a one time investment of Rs. 1,00,000/- which could become Rs. 1,50,000/- after six years. Had the complainant being misled or misrepresented or cheated by the employees of the opposite party then these matters are to be proved by leading evidence and procedure of the Consumer Forum is of summary nature and therefore, any cheating and misrepresentation can only be proved by leading evidence so the complainant can agitate the matter if he so advised before the Civil Court or any other competent Court to redress his grievance.
16. Facing this situation the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the deposited amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be ordered to be refunded alongwith interest on the basis of equity and natural justice. It is already in the evidence that the complainant has purchased the Met Life Insurance Plan. The complainant has also received the terms and conditions of the policy and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions.
17. It is relevant to refer term Clause 15 of the policy which read as.-
“ 15. Surrender Benefit
No surrender value is payable during the first three years of the policy. After the first three policy years, the Surrender Value payable on Surrender is equal to the Fund Value in the Unit Account less the surrender charges as mentioned in clause 11 (D). For the purpose of Surrender Benefit, the Fund Value in the Unit Account will be determined using the Net Asset Value on the corresponding Valuation Date falling on or immediately after the Date of Receipt of Written Request at our designated office.”
18. Further Clause 19 relates to lapse of the policy which read as.-
“19. Lapse
During the first three Policy years, if the Regular Premium is not paid within the grace period, the Policy shall lapse. Once the Policy lapses, the coverage under the policy ceases and deduction of mortality charges and rider premium charges, if any will be stopped. However the policy would be still linked to the units until either reinstated as in clause 20 or surrendered as in clause 15. The policy administration charges would continue to be deducted. After the first three policy years, if Regular Premiums paid are not according to the attached schedule, the insurance cover would be extended subject to clause 21.”
19. Perusal of the ibid terms and conditions shows that the case of the complainant does not cover in the ambit of surrender value as he had paid premium for only two years.
20. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank AIR 2000 SC 10 it was observed that the insurance policy has to be construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial farfetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it.
21. In Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors AIR 2005 SC 286 it was observed that the terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely.
22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum to redress his grievance if he so desires. No order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
22nd Day of May 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
