1.      Sri Narayan Ch. Maiti,

son of late Jatindranath Maiti,

2.      Miss. Santa Maiti,

daughter of Sri Narayan Ch. Maiti,

both of Dinanta A1,

38, College Road,

District –Howrah,

PIN – 711103.-------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Howrah Branch Office,

4/B/1, Salkia School  Road,

( back portion of the 2^nd floor of the premises )

P.S. Golabari, District –Howrah,

PIN  – 711101.

2.      The Managing Director,

Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Brigade Seshmahal,

5, Vani Vilas  Road, Basavanagadi,

Bangalore – 560004.----------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES..

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to return of Rs. 1,30,000/-  together with interest being the first premium of the second policy and for refund of Rs. 31,180/- illegally realized as penalty and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac for mental pain, agony, harassment and unfair trade practice and also for litigation costs as the O.Ps., Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. compelled the complainant no. 1 to surrender his policy being no. 1200700271754 dated 31-07-2007 as the complainants raised objection for deduction of  extra premium of Rs. 50,000/- from his UTI Bank account and to make a second policy in the name of complainant no. 2 arbitrarily fixing a premium of Rs. 1,30,000/- for a period of 73 years. Hence the case. 

2.                  The o.ps. in the written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint

as it is barred by limitation and contended  interalia that the complainants knowing fully well the purport of the policy recorded their signatures. So the complaint should be dismissed.  

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

ii)                  Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

POINT NO. 1

4.      On scrutiny of the record it appears that in para 3 of the complaint it is embodied

that the cause of action arose from Feb’12 and on subsequent dates and the complaint was filed on 10-06-2013 which is well within the time frame. The allegation that the cause of action in Feb’07 appears baseless. So the complaint is not hit by Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986. The point no. 1 is accordingly disposed of.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3

5.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the

complainant no. 1 made a life insurance policy styled as Metlife Smart Plus with the O.P. company on payment of annual premium of Rs. 50,000/- payable for 5 years on the assurance of Mr. Sujoy Basu attached to Howrah Branch Office ( O.P. no. 1 ) and Mr. Abhik Mukherjee of UTI Bank Howrah, on 31-01-2007 vide policy no. 1200700271754 to be withdrawn after 5 years. It was assured that the rate of interest would be much higher than fixed deposit rate of any bank. The yearly premium was to be debited from his  S.B. Account with the UTI Bank, Howrah.  Thus the O.Ps. collected Rs. 3,00,000/- from the said S.B. A/C  for a period of  six years, i.e., from 2007 to 2012 though the plan was for Rs. 2.5 lakhs. Sensing collusion when the 6^th premium of  Rs. 50,000/- was debited, the complainant met the authority who advised him to surrender the policy on condition of purchasing a new policy in the name of the complainant no. 2, his daughter with one  time investment and in that case no penalty would be charged against him. The O.Ps. further assured him that he would be entitled to get back Rs. 1.8 lakhs  and the remaining amount with accumulated interest would be credited to the new policy to be opened in the name of the complainant no. 2 who would be entitled to withdraw the same after 5 years with further interest higher than the Bank’s FD rate of interest. And the complainant no. 1 did it accordingly relying on the assurance of the officers of the O.P. company.    

6.      To his utter surprise the complainants after receiving the new policy on 27-10-

2012 came to learn that the annual premium was fixed for Rs. 1.3 lakhs for a term of 73 years, though the complainant no. 2 did never sign in the application form for issuing such policy ( Met Smart Platinum ), when contacted, the O.Ps. turned a deaf ear to the requests. The o.ps. arbitrarily deducted penalty with service tax a sum of R s. 31,180/- on 07-12-2012 and 31-12-2012 without assigning any reason.   

7.      Whatever be the plea of the O.Ps., their sinister design is clearly manifest from

their conduct. We have no hesitation in our mind that the trap is well-laid with unique calculated terms. It is beyond the imagination of a person with simple prudence how the complainant no. 2 aged about 28 years could agree to a proposal for a term of 73 years, that means to receive the maturity value at such a age when she attains 101 years of age. How funny ! Thanks to the novelty of the proposal being the brain-child of the O.Ps. What better instance of unfair trade practice ( Section 2(1)( r ) C .P. Act ) can be than the instant one ?

8.       The complainants, no doubt,  were compelled to suffer double jeopardy at the

hands of the O.Ps.  The double set of leeches by the O.Ps. and the tie-up UTI Bank in collusion were bent upon to squeeze the bloods of the complainants, an easy prey at their whims. The O.Ps. very conveniently offered the proposal to surrender the earlier policy of the complainant knowing fully well that extra premium of Rs. 50,000/- has been debited from his  (complainant no. 1) account, and simultaneously with malafide intention to faster him with inextricable grip, compelled him to make a 2^nd policy in the name of his daughter ( complainant no. 2 ) with yearly premium of Rs. 1 lakh 30 thousand for a period of 73 years. The complainants having been placed from frying pan to fire was rather compelled to concede to surrender his policy in October, 2012 to obviate the threat of heavy penalty and to purchase a new policy as mentioned above.

9.      It is the persistent claim of the complainants that the complainant no. 2 did never

sign on any paper or document; that the signatures appearing in those documents of the policy were all manufactured by way of computerized scanning of her signatures from a xerox copies of her PAN Card and driving licence and pasting the same on the policy papers / documents.

10.  Be it mentioned that at the request of the O.Ps. the complainants handed over the

xerox copies of PAN Card and AADHAR Card to them for filling up the proposal form to be signed by the complainant no. 2. In spite of repeated requests of the complainants to produce and show the original papers / documents said to have signed by the complainant no. 2, the O.Ps. did not care to produce those papers ( vide Para 25 of the counter affidavit against the written version of the O.Ps. ). The same allegation has not been  controverted in evidence by the O.Ps. on affidavit.  

11.  That the complainants were surprised to see the terms of the 2^nd policy dated 27-

10-2012 is evident from the expressed dissatisfaction dated 29-10-2012 ( page 1,5,8 Annexures no. O.P. no. 4 ).

12.  Therefore, it is clear that the complainant no. 2 did not sign on the proposal form

for issuing a new policy in her name and as such the allegation of matching the signatures of the complainant no. 2 with the proposal form no. 171883092 does not arise at all. In our considered opinion the conduct of the O.Ps. in deducting the extra money from the fund

value the complainant no. 1, in forcing him to surrender his policy and compelling him to make a new policy in the name of the complainant no. 2 is out and out arbitrary. Gross unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps. is glaring. Inasmuch as  the complainants were pressurized to obtain the 2^nd policy and the complainants being at a loss having been placed in a well-orchestrated labyrinth designed by the O.Ps. and the signature of the complainant no. 2 in her policy allegedly not recorded by her, the policy being no. 20935408 dated 27-10-2012 is declared void abinitio. The way the complainant no. 1 being an erudite senior citizen of the society has been used as a pawn by the O.Ps., and as he had to run from pillar to post to extricate himself from the shackles of the O.Ps., demands stern measures.  The O.Ps. cannot have any escape from the rigours of law. 

      Therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed in toto. The policy standing in the name of complainant no. 2 is absolutely void. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D               

      That the C. C. Case No. 183  of 2013 ( HDF 183 of 2013 )  be  and the same is disposed of  on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to return the sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainants with 9% interest since 27-10-2012 till full satisfaction  within 30 days from the date of this order

      The o.ps.  be further directed to refund Rs 31,180/- illegally  realized from the complainants as penalty to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order failing the sum shall carry interest @ 10% till full satisfaction.

      The O.Ps. do further pay compensation to the complainants a sum of Rs 1 lakh for causing mental pain, prolonged harassment and unfair trade practice and a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                              (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.