DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 42/2015
Date of Institution : 24.02.2015
Date of Decision : 11.06.2015
Prem Prakash son of Raja Ram resident of H.No. B-IV/749, Janda wala Road Swami Gali, Barnala, Punjab-148101.
…Complainant
Versus
Metlife India Insurance Company Limited Registered Office Brigade Seshmehal, Vani Vilas Road Besvangudi Bangalore-560 004.
Metlife Insurance Ombudsman, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman S.C.O No. 101-103 2nd Floor, Battra Building Sector 17-D Chandigarh-160017.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Mohan Advocate counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
The opposite party No. 2 deleted.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Prem Prakash has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short referred as Act) against Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, the opposite party No. 1 and Metlife Insurance Ombudsman, the opposite party No. 2.
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a policy bearing No. 20382076 on 4.8.2010 from Metlife India Insurance Company for three years through agent Gopal Krishan (Ag No. 11076448). After completion of 3 years the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 to release the maturity value of the above policy. The complainant also approached many agents of the Company to release the payment. However, the agents offered an amount of Rs. 60,000/- against the deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in one installment. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To pay the maturity value of the policy bearing No. 20382076 after three years which is Rs. 1,90,000/-;
To pay the expenses of visiting to various offices to get justice and dues amounting to Rs. 10,000/-;
To pay compensation for un-necessary harassment and mental agony amounting to Rs. 50,000/-;
To pay the fee of legal adviser of Rs. 7,000/- alongwith charges of preparing case and correspondences with various agencies to get justice and thus total amount comes to Rs. 2,57,000/- alongwith interest @ 12%.
3. Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. However, on 6.4.2015 the Ld. Counsel for the complainant suffered a statement that the complainant does not want to proceed against the opposite party No. 2 and his name may be deleted from the array of opposite parties.
4. The opposite party No. 1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds of limitation, complainant is not a consumer, non-joinder of necessary parties and no deficiency in service. On merits the opposite No. 1 submitted that the complainant after going through the terms and conditions of the product “Met Gold Plus” voluntarily applied for a policy by filling up the proposal form bearing application No. 155837476, wherein the complainant was required to pay an annual premium of Rs. 99,900/- for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs. 4,99,500/-. The complainant also signed a declaration for Unit Linked Products and Benefit Illustration Form for the above policy. On the basis of the proposal form alongwith initial premium, the opposite party issued the policy bearing No. 20382076 on 30.7.2010 to the complainant for a premium paying term for five years. Thereafter, all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 30.7.2010, which were duly delivered to the complainant on 9.8.2010. It is further submitted that the welcome letter categorically stated that in case the complainant disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he may return the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. Thus, the complainant was entitled to cancellation of the policy pursuant to Clause 7.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant did not raise any objections or complaints during the free look period and hence it was presumed that the contract of insurance had been legally concluded. It is further submitted that the complainant did not remit the payment towards premium as due for 30.7.2011, the policy got lapsed. Further the complainant failed to reinstate the policy during reinstatement period, resulting in the foreclosure of the policy on 30.7.2013 as per the terms and conditions. It is also submitted that the foreclosure amount of Rs. 60,908.79/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque bearing No. 234468 dated 9.8.2013, which was sent to the complainant, however the same was returned as undelivered pursuant to which the cheque was cancelled. It is also submitted that the said amount is still lying in the suspense Account. Thus, it is submitted that the complainant is only entitled to the foreclosure amount and nothing more. Moreover, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for. Finally the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of Adhaar Card Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Urmila Mekalki Ex.O.P-1, copy of proposal form Ex.O.P-2, copy of benefit illustration Ex.O.P-3, copy of welcome letter Ex.O.P-4, copy of schedule Ex.O.P-5 and Ex.O.P-6, copy of first premium receipt Ex.O.P-7, copy of statement of account Ex.O.P-8, copy of terms and conditions Ex.O.P-9 and closed the evidence.
7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a policy from Metlife India Insurance Company and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant was promised to pay Rs. 1,90,000/- on maturity after three years. After completion of the three years when the complainant approached the opposite party for releasing the maturity value then the opposite party told the complainant that the policy has already been lapsed and the complainant is entitled to only surrender value. Thus, the complainant has alleged that there is a deficiency in service and he is entitled to the maturity value of Rs. 1,90,000/- alongwith compensation for harassment and other legal charges.
8. On the other hand the case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased a policy issued on the basis of the proposal form duly filled by the complainant and the policy was for five years and annual premium was to be paid to the tune of Rs. 99,900/-, however the complainant has paid only one installment of Rs. 99,900/- and thereafter he did not pay the premium, therefore the policy was lapsed resulting in the foreclosure of the policy on 30.7.2013 and the foreclosure amount of Rs. 60,908.79/- was sent to the complainant through cheque, but the same was returned undelivered and the cheque was cancelled. However, the said amount is still lying in the suspense Account.
9. It is relevant to referred the policy Ex.O.P2 containing the terms and conditions governing both the parties. Perusal of the policy shows that the annual premium was Rs. 99,900/- and it is for five years and it is of dated 20.7.2010.
10. Admittedly, the complainant has paid only one annual installment of Rs. 99,900/- and thereafter he discontinued to pay the premiums. The complainant has not placed on record any document to indicate that infact Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by him in the policy, which ensured to give Rs. 1,90,000/- at the end of three years, therefore the plea of the complainant in this regard cannot be accepted.
11. Keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy as the complainant failed to pay the premium, therefore the policy got lapsed resulting in the foreclosure of the policy on 30.7.2013. In the written version the opposite party has submitted that the foreclosure amount of Rs. 60,908.79/- was sent to the complainant vide cheque No. 234468 dated 9.8.2013, but the same was returned as undelivered. During arguments the opposite party has not denied that the opposite party still ready to pay the said amount.
12. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that since the complainant failed to pay the future premiums, therefore the policy was rightly lapsed and the complainant is entitled to only foreclosure amount of Rs. 60,908.79/-, therefore the complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay Rs. 60,908.79/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 30.7.2013 i.e. date of foreclosure. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 1,100/- on account of litigation expenses from the opposite party No. 1. This order of ours shall be complied within 60 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of June, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
