CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 07/10/2014
CC /150/2014
Rajan.M.Menon,
S/o.M.Komalam, 19/C,
Akshaya, Chithanya Colony, : Complainant
Chandranagar,
Palakkad- 678 007.
(By Adv.M.Rajesh)
Vs
1 Branch Manager,
PNB Metlife Life Insurance Company Ltd,
Nirmal Chambers, 1st Floor, : Opposite parties
Opposite to Bharathmatha School,
Chandranagar, Palakkad-678 007.
2. M/s.PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd,
(Rep.By) Managing Director,
Brigade Sheshmahal 5 Vani Vilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore, Karnataka- 560 004
(By Adv.C.Madhavankutty)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.K.P, Member,
Brief facts of the complaint
The Complainant had availed policy from the opposite party on 13/04/2012 by paying a premium of Rs.74,853/- . The inducement at the time of joining the policy is that the opposite party would provide after 10 years from the term of joining, a monthly payment of Rs.4,900/- on every month. Further it was stated that the policy is a single premium. The opposite party issued a communication for payment of renewal of the policy dtd.23/08/2013 demanding further payment of Rs.73,377/-. When the complainant enquired about the same the opposite parties informed the complainant that the policy is lapse. The above mentioned policy is to be matured on 13/04/2022. The complainant joined the policy under the impression that he will get the benefit after a period of 10 years. The policy certificates and other relevant documents of the policy are not handed over to the complainant till date. The complainant complained the same through e-mail even then the same is not handed over to the complainant. The complainant alleges that the act of the opposite party is deficiency of service. The complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties claiming the entire amount along with compensation for mental agony on 20/06/2014. The opposite party sent a reply with false allegations in stating that they have sent the policy document to the complainant through speed post on 24/04/2012. Postal address in which the alleged consignment is delivered is not that of this complainant. So the complainant had lost the opportunity of free-look-period as per the policy terms and conditions. Hence the complainant had approached before this forum seeking an order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.74,853/- along with 18% interest from the date of the policy till realization by the complainant and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with notice charges and cost of litigation.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to all opposite parties. After accepting the notice 1st opposite party did not appear before the forum. Hence set exparte. 2nd Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version contending the following.
Opposite parties denies all the allegations contained in the complaint and submits that the present complaint is not maintainable since it is barred by limitation u/s 24 A of Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to note that in the dispute the cause of action firstly arose on April 2012 when the said policy was issued to the complainant whereas the complainant has disputed to the policy terms after a period of more than 2 years from the date of issuance of the policy and the present complaint is filed without condoning the delay. The 2nd opposite party contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract and also as per the guidelines issued by IRDA, a policy holder can request for the cancellations of the policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents and in the present case the policy document were delivered to the complainant in the year 2012. Thus the complainant has filed this complaint beyond the time period prescribed by the irda. The averments in the instant complaint are vague, baseless and with malafide intentions. The allegations of deficiency of service and mis selling without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations are baseless. There is neither any unfair trade practice adapted by the opposite party nor any deficiency of service being established against the opposite party. The complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of their product “met monthly income had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up proposal form and offered to pay a modal premium of Rs.74,475.25 annually towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.8,82,000/- respectively. Upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form along with the initial premium of Rs.74,853/-. The opposite parties issued the policy on 21/4/2012 to the complainant for the premium paying term of 10 yrs. An excess amount of Rs.377.75 was lying in suspense account. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were despatched to the complainant’s mailing address on 24/4/2012 through speed post vide POD No.EK474968937IN. The policy document was delivered to the complainant on 27/4/2012. In case if the complainant disagree 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 cancellation available to the complainant pursuant to Clause 6(1) of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant inspite of the receipt of the policy documents has not raised any objections or complaints during the free-look period and hence it was presumed that the contract of the insurance which the opposite party had with the complainant was legally concluded. The excess payment of Rs.377.75 lying in the suspense account was refunded to the complainant through cheque which was send to the complainant’s mailing address on 6/8/2013 through speed post. The cheque was not presented for clearance and since the validity of the cheque has expired, cheque has been cancelled and amount is lying in the suspense account. On 17/5/2013, opposite party received an e-mail from the complainant stating that he has not received the policy details. Since the e-mail was received from unregistered e-mail ID, it was requested to confirm the security questions. On 13/9/2013 again an e-mail was received from the complainant stating that he has not received the policy details. Since the e-mail received was not from registered e-mail ID, again opposite party had requested the complainant to confirm the security question. The complainant confirmed the security question vide e-mail dtd.21/9/2013. Thereafter the opposite party duly replied providing the policy document despatched details via mail on 19/6/2014. A legal notice was received from the complainant which was duly replied by the opposite party on 2/7/2014. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant failed to remit premium and as such the policy has been lapsed. The opposite party submitted that they had followed all the terms and conditions and the complainant now inorder to harass and victimize the opposite party has come with false and frivolous allegations by way of this complaint. Therefore the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both Complainants and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1-A5 was marked. Ext.B1 and B2 was marked from the side of the opposite parties. Evidence was closed. The matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the
part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We have perused the documents on record. It is evidence from Ext.A1 that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.74,853/- to the opposite party towards premium. Since the complainant had stated that he had not received the policy document and was not aware of the terms and conditions he could not remit further premiums. Further it was stated that the complainant was under the impression that the policy is a single premium policy as represented by the opposite parties agent. As per Ext.B1 the maturity period of the policy is 10 years and the complainant ought to have paid the premium payment term of 10 years. From Ext.B2 series it is clear that the complainant had not received the policy document within time and he had enquired about it via e-mail. Hence the complainant had no opportunity to cancel the policy within the free-look period of 15 days. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the opposite parties had committed deficiency of service by not serving the policy document to the complainant within the stipulated period. Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount of 74,853/- (Rupees Seventy four thousand eight hundred and fifty three only) to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Bank statement of the complainant dtd.13/04/2012 (photocopy)
Ext.A2 - letter dtd. 06/08/2013 issued by PNB Metlife addressed to complainant (photocopy)
Ext.A3 - letter dtd. 23/08/2013 issued by PNB Metlife addressed to complainant (original)
Ext.A4 series- Copy of legal notice dtd.19/06/2014 and postal receipts, A/D cards
Ext.A5- Reply notice dtd.02/07/2014
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of proposal form and terms and conditions
Ext.B2series-Copy of e-mails
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost.
