Delhi

East Delhi

CC/31/2013

PREM SINGHAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MET LIFE INDIA INS. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 31/13

 

Shri Prem Singhal

S/o Shri Hari Ram

R/o F-85, Preet Vihar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

Metlife India Insurance Company Limited

Brigade Seshamahal

5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi

Bangalore – 560004

Regional Office at:

Himalaya House,

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi – 110 001Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 11.01.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 28.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 07.03.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri Prem Singhal against Metlife India Insurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services.   

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a policy vide no. 1200800464187 under Met Smart Premier Plan on 14.01.2008 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by paying the first installment of annual premium of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  After taking the first premium, OP issued the policy w.e.f. 14.01.2008 with maturity date as 26.09.2054.  The complainant paid the second premium of Rs. 1,00,000./- on 14.01.2009 vide receipt no. FYRP/2009/1428285 and third premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02.03.2010 vide cheque no. 687785 dated 02.03.2010, drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, which was duly accepted by OP and receipt dated 04.03.2010 was issued for the same.  The third premium was paid by the complainant after a delay of 47 days (grace period of 30 days and delay for 17 days).

            It was further stated that as told by Mr. Jha, the representative of OP, the complainant availed the partial withdrawal benefit scheme of OP and received an amount of Rs. 90,000/- on 14.02.2012 and had taken another policy ‘Met Smart One Plan’ bearing no. 20765668 on 19.03.2012 and paid Rs. 40,000/- out of Rs. 90,000/-. 

            The complainant received a letter from OP dated 05.09.2012 alongwith cheque no., 089025 dated 01.09.2012 amounting to Rs. 91,752/- towards the full and final settlement of the policy.  No prior notice was served upon the complainant for termination of the policy.  It was stated in the letter that the policy no. 00464187 had lapsed on 14.01.2011 and reinstatement period as per terms and conditions of the policy had too expired. 

            The complainant requested OP vide letter dated 30.09.2011 to regularize/reinstate his policy as same could be reinstated upto two years i.e. till 2013 after paying all the premiums.  The cheque of Rs. 91,752/- was encashed by the complainant without prejudice to his other rights to recover the remaining amount from OP.

            The complainant issued a legal notice dated 19.11.2012 to OP which was duly served.  Complainant has stated that OP sent a false and frivolous reply dated 12.12.2012, but did not comply the same.

            It was stated that the said acts and conduct of OP amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund the remaining amount of Rs. 1,19,000/- alongwith interest; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 33,000/- towards cost of litigation.        

                        

            The complainant has annexed copy of receipts of premium, copy of letter dated 05.09.2012 alongwith copy of pay order no. 089025 dated 01.09.2012, copy of letter dated 30.09.2012, 23.10.2012, copy of legal notice dated 19.11.2012 and its reply dated 12.12.2012 and copy of terms and conditions of the policy alongwith the complaint.

3.         OP filed their reply upon service of notice, wherein they took several pleas in their defence such as after paying the premium till 14.01.2010, the complainant did not pay any further premium and also failed to get the policy reinstated within the reinstatement window period.  On 06.02.2012, OP received a partial withdrawal request from the complainant for which an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was credited to the complainant’s bank account through RTGS UTR no. CITIN12164454086 on 13.02.2012. 

            It was stated that on 29.06.2012, the policy got autoforclosed and the Fund Value available in the policy account was Rs. 1,59,168.20.  On 08.05.2012, OP sent a Policy Foreclosure Intimation Letter to the complainant thereby intimating him that as on 08.05.2012, the Fund Value in his account was Rs. 1,54,047/- which was subject to the market conditions and as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Complainant was also requested to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards due dated 14.01.2011 and 14.01.2012 and get the policy reinstated, but the complainant failed to get his policy reinstated. 

            It was also stated that the policy was in premium discontinuance stage effective from 14.01.2011 because of non receipt of the premium since January 2011.  The policy was foreclosed as per the Contract Termination Clause on 29.06.2012, as the surrender value for the policy had become less than the annualized premium.   Other facts have also been denied. 

            OP has annexed copy of the proposal form, declaration for Unit Linked Products, Benefit Illustration Form alongwith terms and conditions, copy of Foreclosure Intimation Letter dated 08.05.2012 and 23,10,2012 and copy of reply of legal notice dated 12.12.2012 alongwith written statement.        

  4.       In his rejoinder to the WS filed by OP, the complainant has denied the contents of the WS and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copies of all premium receipts (Ex.CW-1/A-1 to A-3 colly.), copy of letter dated 05.09.2012 (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of cheque (Ex.CW-1/C), copy of letter dated 30.09.2012 (Ex.CW-1/D), copy of legal notice (Ex.CW-1/E) and its reply (Ex.CW-1/F), and photocopy of terms and conditions of the policy (Ex.CW-1/G). 

            OP have examined Shri Rajeev Sharma, Senior Manager-Legal of OP, who have examined himself on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts which have been stated in their WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of the proposal form, declaration for Unit Linked Products, Benefit Illustration Form alongwith terms and conditions (Annexure OP-1 series), copy of Foreclosure Intimation Letter dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure OP-2), copy of letter dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure OP-3) and copy of reply of legal notice dated 12.12.2012 (Annexure OP-4).   

6.         We have heard the submission on behalf of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant had averred that OP has refunded Rs. 91,752/- despite the fact that the complainant had paid three annual premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010.  The Ld. Counsel for complainant had stated that as per Clause 20 of policy terms and conditions which deals with “Reinstatement” the complainant could get the policy reinstated within 2 years from the date of the first unpaid premium due, thus he could have got the policy reinstated till 2013, but OP had refunded the money by foreclosing the policy in 2012 itself. 

            OP has stated that they had sent a reminder dated 08.05.2012 to the complainant to pay premium, but have not placed on record any proof of delivery to support their claim.  Further, they have also not placed any document on record to show that what was the NAV for the date when the policy was foreclosed.  The said policy was foreclosed on the basis of fund value as on 29.06.2012, but the cheque was despatched on 07.09.2012 which is after a period of more than 2 months. 

            Appreciation of facts discussed above prove that OP was deficient in providing services.  Hence, we direct the OP to pay Rs. 1,18,247/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization.  We further award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental pain which includes the cost of litigation.

            The order be complied within 30 days from the date of order.  If not complied, the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- shall carry 7% interest from the date of order.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President