BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 3rd February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C. No.203/2013
(Admitted on 24.07.2013)
Mr. Akshay.P
S/o Jagadish Panamaur,
Nandana, Kodikal, Ashoknagar Post,
Mangalore 575006.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri PJP)
VERSUS
The Managing Director/Section Officer,
MetLife Insurance Company Limited,
Old Kent Road, Mangalore 575001.
…........OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri KSNR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
- 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs to refund Rs.36,000/ paid towards policy premium with interest of 12,000/, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards mental agony, to pay of Rs.250/ towards Application Charges and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the litigation expences.
2. In support of the above complaint Mr. Akshay P filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C13 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. M. Udaiyakumar Jain (RW1) Manager Legal and duly Constituted Attorney of PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd, also filed affidavit evidence and not replied the interrogatories served on him and produced documents not marked.
The brief facts of the case are as under
On perusal of the complainant and the version of the parties we understood the dispute as; the complainant’s father had purchased an insurance policy from the opposite party in the name of the complainant when he was a minor. On attaining the majority the insurance policy automatically transferred in the name of the complainant and the complainant changed the beneficiary in the name of his sister. Later not interested in continuing the policy surrendered the insurance policy. In spite of three months passed the opposite party not settled the surrender value. On complaining, the opposite party replied that the surrender application rejected due to signature issue. (No signature proof of the present policy holder available). Also complainant alleges that the opposite party is charging expenses on the policy under different head without justification. Hence alleges deficiency in service. The opposite party in contesting the allegation submitted that on changing of the policy holder on attaining the majority of the insured minor the name of the policy holder changed automatically and hence the authenticated signature of the policy holder is not available and could not able to compare the signature of the insurance policy, surrender application is rejected. However the complainant may submit fresh surrender application with the required document and same will be considered on the base of NAV at that time of fresh application. With regard to charges the opposite party submits it is charged as per agreed terms. This being the facts of dispute we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
On considering the evidence adduced and the documents produced, the admitted facts are the purchase of the policy by the father of the complainant in the name of the complainant as insured. The complainant was a minor at the time of policy and later attain the majority and the policy was automatically changed in the name of the complainant. The complainant opted for the surrender of the policy and the opposite party not yet paid the surrender value to the complainant on the issue of signature. It is denied by the complainant that the opposite party has charged as per the terms of the policy, it is also denied the signature issue as correct for the rejection of the surrender application and non-payment of the surrender value. The opposite party denies the jurisdiction to this forum on the grounds like, the insurance policy is in the form of an investment and the amount will be invested in the share for making profit and also a speculation trade, it is of civil nature as the fraud is pleaded etc., These are being the admissions and the denials, we are of the opinion in disposing this complainant the following points are of decide worth.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer and this Forum has jurisdiction as per Consumer Protection Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
We have considered the evidence led by the parties and the documents produced by the rivals. Notes of arguments taken note off and heard submission of the parties and answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the affirmative.
- In the affirmative in part.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: It is admitted that the insurance policy named METLIFE was taken in the name of the complainant by the father of the complainant when the complainant was minor. Later, on attaining the majority the insurance policy automatically transferred in the name of the complainant herein. So it is clear that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party. The issue related to jurisdiction on the ground that it is an investment for profit in the shares and there is fraud alleged is not at all acceptable. It is observed that the insurance policy is covering the life of the insured and it is risk covered policy for the future safety security of the policy holder as a social measure and not primarily an investment. None of the citation produced by the opposite party will endorse the contention of the opposite party. Secondly we do not come across any specific issue alleged seriously of fraud, also if the Forum is competent to resolve the consumer dispute issue before it the forum can assume jurisdiction and it is discretion of the Forum about its ability to resolve the dispute. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is the consumer and the Forum has jurisdiction. Hence the point No 1 is in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2: There are two issues involved in deciding the deficiency in service. First, the complainant alleges that the surrender value not refunded to the complainant and the other issue is charging expenses unjustifiable. The complainant states that he has given application for the surrender of the insurance policy on 20.12.2012 but opposite party not reverted back for three months but on complaining about the no response the opposite party has stated that the surrender application was rejected due to signature not verified since they do not have signature of the complainant/present policy holder. On verification of the EX C 6 the rejection letter, it was rejected on date 28.12.2012 but not informed the complainant for three months unnecessarily. The rejection letter was sent on 13.02.2013 as per EX C 13. There is delay of two and a half months in communicating the rejection. Also complainant alleges that the opposite party has verified the signature at the time of the surrender application given as annexure OP 2 submitted by the opposite party. The complainant drawn our attention towards tabular check list wherein right side third column no 3 it is marked as the signature verified: Yes (ticked). It shows the formality for verifying signature is completed. We also observed in EX C 2 the Beneficiary and Appointee Change Request Form that the complainant has submitted this form and there is signature of the complainant affixed in second page of the exhibit. Our doubt is how the opposite party without having the signature of the complainant can execute the request of change of beneficiary when they do not have the complainant signature for verification of the signature on the Request Form. When they acted upon this Form what is hurdle to consider the surrender application as they have already the signature of the complainant affixed to Beneficiary and Appointee Change Request Form. In our view the opposite party contention that the signature of the complainant is not available to verify is only an afterthought to cover their negligence. The opposite party could have considered the surrender application but did not. Hence we find the deficiency in service with regard to first issue.
2. The second issue is related to the charging of expenses unjustifiable. It is the opposite party contention that they are ready to consider the surrender application if applied again with particulars of proofs like pan card or driving license or ration card etc., for verification purpose. In our opinion to decide this issue of charging of expenses is premature. The opposite party contested the issue on the ground that the charges are levied as per terms of the contract and the father of the complainant had agreed for the contract terms. It is not disputed the contract originally entered into with the father of the complainant and the father of the complainant is not a party in the complaint. This issue can be resolved only after the payment of surrender value is made with calculation as per agreed terms. Hence in our opinion the discussion of this issue is premature. As for as first point of not refunding of the surrender value is concern there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant proved the same. Hence we answered the point no 2 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 3: As we hold the opposite party is responsible for the delay in settling the surrender value to the complainant with unjust reason and hold back the complainant money even after the surrender application tendered the opposite party is liable for the deficiency in service and hence liable to compensate the complainant. In our opinion the opposite party is negligent in considering the surrender application; the complainant is entitled for a compensation of ₹ 10000/ and the ₹ 10000/ as litigation expenses including notice charge. However the refund of the premium amount is concern we are declining on the ground that the opposite party had covered the risk for the completed years of policy in force and the complainant already tendered the surrender application. But the complainant is entitled for the surrender value as the opposite party undertaken to consider if the complainant applied afresh with details of address and signature proof. The opposite party shall calculate the surrender value as per agreed terms of the insurance policy on the date of original surrender application or on the date of the fresh application, with interest at 10% per annum from the date of NAV applied till the date of payment whichever is beneficial to the complainant. (The problem cropped up because of the negligence of the opposite party as such the benefit of beneficial legislation shall be given to the complainant). The complainant is entitled for the detailed calculation chart of the surrender value arrived at prepared by the opposite party. Hence we answered the point no 3 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 4: As per above discussion and the adjudication of the points above we deliver the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of ₹ 10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and an amount of ₹ 10,000/ (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The opposite party shall also pay the complainant the surrender value arrived at as per discussion in point no 3 above with interest of 10% per annum from the date as discussed above till the date of the payment. The opposite party shall also furnish in writing in detail the calculation of the sum arrived at for the surrender value. The order shall be complied with in 30 days from the date of the copy of this order received.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 10 directly typed by member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 3rd February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Akshay P
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: First Premium Receipt
Ex.C2:08.12.2009: Beneficiary and Appointee change Request Form
Ex.C3:10.12.2009: Beneficiary change confirmation letter
Ex.C4: 03.07.2010: letter written by complainant to Opposite party
Ex.C5: 20.12.2012: Surrender Request Form
Ex.C6: : Rejection letter
Ex.C7: : E-mail and letters
Ex.C8: : Statement of account
Ex.C9: 08.03.2013 : Legal notice
Ex.C10:23.04.2013: Reply notice
Ex.C11: : Met Life Insurance Policy
Ex.C12: : Bank Pan book
Ex.C13: : Courier Intimation
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. M. Udaiyakumar Jain, Manager-Legal and duly Constituted Attorney of PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 03.02.2017 MEMBER
