Haryana

Sonipat

CC/277/2016

Rashmi Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Met Life India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mahabir Tyagi

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.277 of 2016                                             Instituted on:26.07.2016.

                                Date of order:19.12.2016

 

Rashmi Chhabra daughter of Narinder Nath Chhabra and wife of Umesh Dhara, resident of H.No.12/521, Batra Colony, Rishi Nagar, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Met Life India Ins. Co. Ltd. having its registered office at Brigade Seshamahal, 5, Vani Vilas road, Basavanagudi, Banglore-560004 through its Managing Director.

2.Met Life India Ins. Co. Ltd. having its camp office at PNB, Main Branch, near Hindu Boys College, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.Punjab National Bank, City Branch, Kumaharan Gate, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Umesh Dhara     Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Mukesh Tyagi    Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2.

           Sh. SC Jain,        Advocate for respondent no.3.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she obtained an insurance policy no.20695785 Met Monthly Income Plan with payment mode annual and premium amount of Rs.42699.67paise from corporate agent of Punjab National Bank Sonepat issued by respondent no.1.  The complainant has been regularly paying premium amount and lastly she paid an amount of Rs.42700/- on 16.1.2016 and payment of two other policies were also made on 16.1.2016.  These amounts were transferred from saving bank account pertaining to the husband of the complainant maintained with respondent no.3.  To the utter surprise of the complainant, she received a SMS on 12.7.2016 on her mobile that her policy has been lapsed due to non payment of premium and insurance protection is not available to her and her family under this policy and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1, 2 and 3 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

          The respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted that the renewal premium of policy bearing no.20695785 was due on 19.12.2015 and the complainant has failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date and due to this, the policy moved to paid up status.   The complainant thereafter has paid the renewal premium under the said policy alongwith the declaration of good health certificate.  Since the signature in the declaration of good health certificate did not match with the signature of the complainant available in the records of the respondents no.1 and 2, the policy could not be reinstated.  The amount of Rs.42701.32 was transferred in the bank account of the complainant through NEFT.    The complainant is entitled to reinstate the policy in accordance with the terms of the policy contract after completing the requisite formalities.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          In reply, the respondent no.3 has admitted the fact regarding making of payment by the complainant of premium amount from saving bank account no.3141000100224598.  The respondent no.3 has not rendered any deficient services to the complainant and thus, she is not entitled for any relief & compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has obtained an insurance policy no.20695785 Met Monthly Income Plan with payment mode annual and premium amount of Rs.42699.67 paise from corporate agent of Punjab National Bank Sonepat issued by respondent no.1.  The complainant has been regularly paying premium amount and lastly she paid an amount of Rs.42700/- on 16.1.2016 and payment of two other policies were also made on 16.1.2016.  These amounts were transferred from saving bank account pertaining to the husband of the complainant maintained with respondent no.3.  To the utter surprise of the complainant, she received a SMS on 12.7.2016 on her mobile that her policy has been lapsed due to non payment of premium and insurance protection is not available to her and her family under this policy and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has submitted that the renewal premium of policy bearing no.20695785 was due on 19.12.2015 and the complainant has failed to pay the renewal premium on the due date and due to this, the policy moved to paid up status.   The complainant thereafter has paid the renewal premium under the said policy alongwith the declaration of good health certificate.  Since the signature in the declaration of good health certificate did not match with the signature of the complainant available in the records of the respondents no.1 and 2, the policy could not be reinstated.  The amount of Rs.42701.32 was transferred in the bank account of the complainant through NEFT.    The complainant is entitled to reinstate the policy in accordance with the terms of the policy contract after completing the requisite formalities.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has admitted the fact regarding making of payment by the complainant of premium amount from saving bank account no.3141000100224598.  The respondent no.3 has not rendered any deficient services to the complainant and thus, she is not entitled for any relief & compensation.

4.        After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.

          As per document C-1, due date of premium of the policy in question was 19^th December of every year.  The present policy is of Yearly Mode.  As per document Annexure R-1, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and clause 4.2 Grace Period is mentioned as under:-

4.2 Grace Period   The regular premiums are payable on the due date for payment and in any case not later than the grace period of 30 days from the due date for quarterly/half yearly/yearly frequencies and 15 days from the due date for monthly frequency, respectively.  During the grace period, the policy shall continue to be in force for the insured event.  If the regular premium is not paid within the grace period, the policy shall lapse and have no further value except as may be provided under section 4.4.

          The perusal of this condition shows that the grace period of depositing the premium was upto 18.1.2016.  The complainant has placed on record the document Ex.C2 i.e. copy of passbook which shows that an amount of Rs.42700/- were deducted from the account of her complainant’s husband on 16.1.2016 regarding the premium of the policy in question.  The premium amount was deducted within the grace period, thus, no good health declaration certificate is required to be submitted by the complainant.   In our view , refund of amount of Rs.42701.32 paise on 29.8.2016 by way of NEFT by PNB Met Life India is wrong, illegal and unjustified because despite receiving the premium amount of the policy in question within grace period, though from the account of the complainant’s husband, the respondents no.1 and 2 discontinued the policy of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to restore the insurance policy bearing no.20695785 Met Monthly Income Plan from the date of its discontinuation.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the premium amount with the respondents no.1 and 2 for restoration of her policy by way of RTGS/NEFT/DD or by way of cheque, within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:19.12.2016