Punjab

Moga

CC/15/44

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

13 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                      C.C. No. 44 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 06.07.2015

                                                  Decided On: 13.11.2015

 

Jagjit Singh age 45 years (Date of Birth 15.08.1965) s/o Sh.Balvir Singh, R/o Village Smalsar, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Met Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Brigade Seshamahal 5, Vani Vilas Road Basavanagudi Bangalore-560004, through its Manager.

2. Axis Bank Ltd. Branch Baghapurana, through its Manager.

3. Rachna Sharma (Agent), d/o Vishwa Sharma r/o Devi Wala Road, Gali No.2, Near Bhardwaj School Wali Gali Kotakpura, District Faridkot

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

 

Coram:   Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                 Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

Present:  Sh.Jagjit Singh complainant in person.

                Sh.Armaan Deep Singh, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.2.

                Complaint against opposite party no.3 stands dismissed as

                withdrawn.

 

 

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Met Life Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Brigade Seshamahal 5, Vani Vilas Road Basavanagudi Bangalore-560004, through its Manager and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to pay Rs.77,335.68p deposited by the complainant with the opposite party as premium of insurance policy alongwith interest to the complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

 2.               Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a insurance policy namely Mit Bhavishya-A-Flax Money Back Policy, bearing no.1200800616560 for his daughter namely Rupinder Kaur (Date of Birth 20.06.1996), through opposite party no.1, from opposite party no.1 on dated 31.07.2008. The maturity date of the same was 31.07.2021 and policy term of the same was 13 years. The complainant  had deposited the amount with the opposite party no.2, through opposite party no.3 as given below:-

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 31.07.2008

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 30.07.2009 vide receipt no. 479/20090730/0001

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 24.08.2010 vide receipt no. 479/20100824/0001

Rs.15,505/- on dated 06.09.2011 vide receipt no. C7423118

Rs.15,530.27p on dated 30.07.2012 vide receipt no. 479/20120730/0001

In total Rs.77,335.68p

                   The complainant does not want to continues with the insurance policy and requested the opposite party to return his amount alongwith interest. But to no effect. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel Sh.Armaan Deep Singh, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide; the complainant is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law; the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of services without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations made in the complaint; the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a 'Consumer Dispute' under the Consumer Protection Act. Further submitted that the complainant in the present dispute, after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product 'Met Bhavishya" Plan had voluntarily filled up a proposal form bearing no.301118840 signed it and offered to pay Rs.15,530.27p towards premium under the said policy for a sum assured of Rs.1,06,000/-. Upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal forms alongwith the initial premium of Rs.15,530.27p and the information and documents provided by the complainant, the opposite party evaluated the proposal form of the complainant and accordingly issued a policy bearing no.00616560 to the complainant having date of commencement as 31.07.2008. The policy documents alongwith the policy illustration form, Policy Schedule and the terms and conditions thereto and a welcome letter was dispatched to the complainant on 02.08.2008. However, after availing the said policy, the complainant failed/avoided adhere to the terms of the premium renewal payment term of the said policy and neglected to pay renewal premium in respect of the said policy after 31.07.2012. Since the complainant failed/avoided paying renewal premium in respect of the said policy after the year 2015, thus, due to non payment of the premium the said policy lapsed and the status of the said policy was changed into paid up status. On 26.08.2011, the complainant's sister called at the call center of the opposite party and asked about the premium term/policy details/surrender/payouts/policy features/policy term/Branch and all the information sought were duly provided to her. Despite of the fact that the policy documents were delivered to the complainant, the complainant multiple times called at the call center of the opposite party and enquired about the policy detail such as surrender value, branch contact details, and survival benefits on 9.9.13, 24.9.13 and 26.3.14 which were duly informed to the complainant. Further submitted that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions, he could have applied for the cancellation of the policy within the Free Look Period as all the policy documents were delivered to him. However the complainant had neither raised any complaint nor raised any objection within the Free Look Period or even thereafter. Further submitted that in the Proposal Form, the complainant had signed a declaration thereof that he has read the proposal form and after fully understanding the contents thereof and the terms and conditions of the plan have applied for the same. Thus, under the circumstances, mentioned above, the opposite party cannot consider the request of the complainant for cancellation of the said policy or refund of the premium amount at his belated stage. On merits, denying all other allegations of the complainant, answering opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite party no.2 appeared through counsel Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable; no deficiency of service has been attributed against the opposite party no.2. Further submitted that opposite party no.2 Axis Bank Limited cannot carry on 'Insurance Business' as per the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and hence does not offer insurance products. The policy that forms the subject matter of this complaint was issued by opposite party no.1 & 3 and hence the complaint cannot be maintained nor relief sought by the complainant be ordered against opposite party no.2. The role of the opposite party no.2 has acted only as facilitator/referral agent and the actual insurance is issued by the insurance company i.e. opposite party no.1 & 3 and as such the complaint cannot be filed against opposite party no.2 and therefore, liable to be dismissed. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party no.2. It is settled principle of law u/s 230 of Indian Contract Act that an agent can neither sue nor be sued except under the special circumstances mentioned therein. The opposite party no.2 has been wrongfully joined as party to complaint as the contract of insurance is between Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the complainant. The complainant may therefore be directed to seek Redressal of his grievances from opposite party nos.1 and 3 without involving opposite party no.2. The complainant has got no locus-standi; the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint. Moreover lengthy examination-in-chief and cross examination of the parties/witnesses are required in the complaint. So, the complaint is required to be decided by the Civil Court and as such this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose off the complaint. Therefore, the complaint deserves dismissal; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. Further submitted that complainant himself got insured his daughter Rupinder Kaur from the opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.3 and this fact has been so admitted in para no.2 of the complaint itself by the complainant himself. In case the complainant was not interested or did not like the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, he could have very well got the same cancelled in the "Free Look Period". Rather the complainant kept on paying the installments to opposite party no.1 almost 4 years as is mentioned in para no.3. The complaint is false, frivolous, baseless, vague and malicious. On merits, the contents of all other paras have been denied.

5.                Complaint against opposite party no.3 stood dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the statement suffered by the complainant on 26.08.2015.

6.                In his evidence, the complainant Jagjit Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

7.                To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.V.Prashanth Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 & Ex.OP-1/3and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.1.

8.                Opposite party no.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Dinesh Kumar Ex.OP2/1 and copies of disputed receipts Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.2.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record.

10.              On the basis of the evidence on record, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently contended that Axis Bank Limited was the facilitator, which got the insurance of the complainant issued from Met Life Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 is neither necessary party nor a proper party. However, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has contended that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.15,433.47p on dated 31.07.2008, Rs.15,433.47p on dated 30.07.2009, Rs.15,433.47p on dated 24.08.2010, Rs.15,505/- on dated 06.09.2011 & Rs.15,530.27p on dated 30.07.2012 in all Rs.77,335.68p with opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 has summoned the relevant receipts regarding payment of premium from opposite party no.1, through indulgence of this Forum, copies of the receipts accounts for Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 i.e. disputed receipts. It is contended that no case is made out against opposite party no.2 in any manner and no claim has been made against opposite party no.2. It is contended that complaint against opposite party no.2 may be dismissed.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has vehemently contended that the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.15,433.47p on 31.07.2008 at the time of issue of the policy only and thereafter no payment towards premium has been made by the complainant. The complainant could get the insurance policy in dispute cancelled within a Free Look Period of 15 days, but the complainant has not exercised his volition within the prescribed period, therefore, the complainant cannot get the premium amount of Rs.15,433.47p from opposite party no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 cannot consider the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount at this belated stage and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

12.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that it is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the insurance policy from opposite party no.1 on 31.07.2008. The maturity date of insurance policy was 31.07.2021 i.e. the policy term was for 13 years. It is proved on record that the complainant has deposited the premium amount with opposite party no.2, through opposite party no.3 as given below:-

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 31.07.2008

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 30.07.2009

Rs.15,433.47p on dated 24.08.2010

Rs.15,505/- on dated 06.09.2011

Rs.15,530.27p on dated 30.07.2012

                    Copies of the receipts account for Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5 i.e. disputed receipts. The complainant does not want to continue with the insurance policy and had requested the opposite party no.1 to refund the premium amount so paid by him. But however, opposite party no.1 refused to refund the premium amount. The claim has been declined without application of mind simply because volition of cancellation of the policy was not exercised within 15 days of issue of the policy would not disentitle the complainant to surrender the policy in dispute thereafter. Since the complainant wants to surrender the policy, therefore, he is entitled to the refund of the premium amount to the tune of Rs.77,335.68p from opposite party no.1 besides that the complainant is also entitled to grant of compensation as well as expenses for litigation to be determined by this Forum.

13.              We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions.

14.              There is no denying the fact that the complainant got his daughter insured from opposite party no.1 on 31.07.2008, copy of the insurance policy accounts for Ex.C2. It is also not disputed that maturity date of the insurance cover was 31.07.2021. The policy term was for 13 years. It is proved on record that the complainant had deposited premium amount to the tune of Rs.77,335/- copies of the disputed receipts accounts for Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/5. The complainant does not want to continue with the policy. But however, the request of the complainant was not adhered to by opposite party no.1. The case of opposite party no.1 has been that premium to the tune of Rs.15,433.47p only was deposited on 31.07.2008 at the time of the issue of insurance policy and thereafter no premium was paid. But however, the stand of opposite party no.1 stood falsified from the evidence produced by the complainant as well as opposite party no.2.

15.              It becomes evident that an amount of Rs.15,433.47p on 30.07.2009, Rs.15,433.47p on 24.08.2010, Rs.15,505/- on 6.9.2011, Rs.15,530.27p on 30.07.2012 was deposited by the complainant as payment towards premium. In all a sum of Rs.77,335.68p was deposited by the complainant towards premium relating to the insurance policy in dispute. Since the complainant does not want to continue with the insurance policy in dispute any more, therefore, opposite party no.1 cannot decline the request of the complainant for payment of surrender amount. However, it is settled principle of law that the complainant is entitled to refund as per IRDA rules and regulations. Since the formal request for surrender of the policy has not been made by the complainant to opposite party no.1, therefore, the complainant is directed to surrender the policy in dispute to opposite party no.1 within 15 days of passing of this order, thereafter opposite party no.1 shall be liable to refund the requisite amount to be assessed by it, within further period of 15 days. The complainant stands disposed off accordingly. However, the complaint against opposite party no.2 is not maintainable; neither it is necessary nor proper party to the present complaint. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant to maintain the complaint against opposite party no.2. As such, complaint against opposite party nos. 2 stands dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                              (Vinod Bala)                 (S.S. Panesar)

                                Member                           President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:13.11.2015.