BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.425 of 2015
Date of Instt. 01.10.2015
Date of Decision :27.07.2016
Surjit Kumar Ratti aged about 46 years R/o B-6/1181, Mathura Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized representative, 'Brigade Seshamahal', 5 Vani Violas Road Basvangudi, Bangalore-560004.
2.PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized representative, Platinum Towers, 4th Floor, Sohna Road, Sector-46, Gurgao.
3.PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized representative, Unit No.TF3, 3rd Floor, Eminent Mall Complex, Guru Nanak Mission Road, Jalandhar, also at 261 Lajpat Nagar, near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Puneeet Sareen Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.HS Kohli Adv., counsel for the OPs.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs), on the averments that complainant got insurance plan Met Money Back bearing policy No.21128030 from OP on 23.7.2014 on payment of premium Rs.37,595. Thereafter, when complainant had gone through the contents of the insurance policy, it came to his knowledge for the first time that the policy given to him by the OP is not for 5 years but instead is for 10 years. Complainant felt cheated and approached OP for rectifying the policy for 5 years or to refund the premium amounting to Rs.37,595/- but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Then complainant served legal notice dated 10.8.2015 upon the OPs but even then OP neither rectified the policy nor refunded the amount of premium paid by the complainant to the OP. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of premium i.e. Rs.37,595/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. Met Money Back Plan, complainant had voluntarily filled up a proposal form bearing No.202528167, signed it on 22.7.2013 and offered to pay Rs.37,595/- towards premium under the said policy for a period of 10 years for the sum assured Rs.4 Lakhs. On the basis of the said proposal form, OP issued policy alongwith welcome letter on 24.7.2013. The said policy was dispatched to the complainant on 24.7.2013 through speed post vide consignment No.EK408113154IN which was duly received by the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant had option to get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents but the complainant did not do so. On 23.4.2015, the complainant called at the customer care of the OP and enquired about the surrender details of the policy and the said details were duly shared with the complainant. After payment of first premium alongwith proposal form on 23.7.2013, complainant did not pay any other premium in respect of the said policy. Complainant failed to pay the next premium due for payment on 23.7.2014 despite various request and reminders made by the OPs to the complainant. As such, after lapse of grace period of one month, the policy lapsed on 24.8.2014 and the complainant did not make any efforts to get the policy renewed.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got insurance plan Met Money Back bearing policy No.21128030 from OP on 23.7.2014 on payment of premium Rs.37,595 with a sum assured Rs.4 Lakhs. Complainant received the insurance policy documents and found that term of the policy is 10 years whereas complainant was told of five years term. So, complainant approached the OP either to rectify the policy for five years or to refund the premium amount paid by the complainant alongwith interest but the OP did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Then, complainant served legal notice dated 10.8.2015 Ex.C2 upon the OPs through registered, postal receipt of which is Ex.C3 but even then OP neither rectified the policy nor refunded the amount of premium paid by the complainant to the OP. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainant in order to obtain insurance policy, filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.C1 voluntarily in which it has been categorically mentioned that the term of the policy is 10 years and the premium payment term is 10 years. The sum assured Rs.4 Lakhs and the amount of premium is Rs.37,595/- yearly. On the basis of the said proposal form, the OP issued policy alongwith welcome letter Ex.OP2 on 24.7.2013. The said policy was dispatched to the complainant on 24.7.2013 through speed post vide consignment No.EK408113154IN which was duly received by the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, complainant had option to get the policy cancelled within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents but the complainant did not do so. Complainant himself has admitted that he has received the policy documents immediately but he approached the OP for the first time on 23.4.2015 i.e. after lapse a period of two years to enquire about the surrender details of the policy. After payment of first premium alongwith the proposal form on 23.7.2013, complainant did not pay any other premium in respect of the said policy. Complainant failed to pay the next premium due for payment on 23.7.2014 despite various request and reminders made by the OPs to the complainant. As such, after lapse of grace period of one month, the policy lapsed on 24.8.2014 and the complainant did not make any efforts to get the policy renewed. The OP has covered the risk period of complainant for one year and thereafter policy stand lapsed. As such, complainant is not entitled to refund of the amount of premium paid by the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant in order to obtain the life insurance policy from the OP filled in and signed the proposal form Ex.C1. There is declaration at the end of this proposal form whereby the complainant declared that he has been explained the contents of the proposal/application form and after fully understanding the terms and conditions of the plan, he has applied for this policy and has signed this document in token of its correctness. In this proposal form Ex.C1/Ex.OP1, it has been categorically mentioned that the policy term is 10 years and the premium payment term is also 10 years. The amount of premium is Rs.37,595/- yearly. The sum assured is Rs.4 Lakhs. On the basis of this proposal form, the OPs issued policy bearing No.21128030 with welcome letter Ex.OP2 on 24.7.2013. The said policy documents were dispatched to the complainant through speed post dated 24.7.2013 with consignment No.EK408113154IN. The complainant himself has admitted that he received the policy immediately i.e. within one month i.e. in the month of August, 2013. The allegations of the complainant is that he was told that the policy term is 5 years but he received policy with term of 10 years and the premium payment term of 10 years. If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, as per clause 6 (General provisions) he has option of free look period to get the policy cancelled within this free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents but the complainant did not do so. Rather, he approached the OP for the first time on 23.4.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 1 ½ years and that too to enquire about the surrender details of the policy. Complainant submitted that he approached the OP and requested either to rectify the policy or to refund the premium amount to the complainant but the complainant could not produce any documentary evidence or any cogent evidence to prove that complainant approached the OP for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount within free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents. Except the payment of initial premium alongwith proposal form, complainant did not pay any other premium in respect of the aforesaid policy which was due for payment on 23.7.2014. So after a lapse of a grace period of one month, the policy lapsed on 23.8.2014 and complainant did not make any effort to get the policy revised/renewed. The OP has covered the risk period of the complainant for one year. The policy stand lapsed due to non payment of premium. As such, OP was justified in not making the refund of the amount of premium paid by the complainant to the OP.
9. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
27.07.2016 Member President
