District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.294/2020.

 Date of Institution: 08.09.2020.

Date of Order: 19.12.2022.

Mahesh Chand Aggarwal son of late Sh. Panna Lal Aggarwal, aged 62 years, resident of House No. 228, Sector-17, Near Goyal Nursing Home, Faridabad – 121002. Mobile No. 9312692679.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

M/s. PNB Metlife India Insurance Limited, SCF -39, Ist floor, Sector-19, Part-2 HUDA Market, Faridabad – 121002, Haryana.

                                                                   …Opposite party……..

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  M.K, Aggarwal,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh. Ajay Sharma counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant had got Metlife Guaranteed Income Plan Policy from opposite party having policy No. 22154857 dated 31.03.2017 for a period of 10years i.e. upto 30.03.2016 for a period of 10 years i.e. upto  31.03.2027 and its date of maturity of policy was 30.03.2027 and its  premium of Rs.29,556/- per annum.  According to opposite party, stated that the complainant had to pay Rs.29,556/- per annum from the date of policy till 7 years i.e to pay Rs.2,06,962/- in 7 years and after 7 years further 3 years there was no any premium and after 10 years.  The policy got matured and amount would be given alongwith interest and bonus and accordingly complainant would be obtained Metlife Guaranteed Income Plan policy from opposite party for a period of 10 years only.  Opposite party had illegally and unlawfully and without prior permission/consent of complainant, opposite party had suo moto changed the signed age of the policy where premium term of 7 years and policy ensure of 10years was mentioned and the policy tenure was changed from 10 years to 20 years and also premium term was changed from 7 years to 10 years with the intent to cheat complainant.  When the complainant had got to know regarding his policy and he found that opposite party suo moto had changed the policy plan from 10 years to 20 years than complainant made complaint to the opposite party notice on 20.06.20, 27.06.2020, 14,07.2020 by the complainant through emails and telephonic calls but opposite party had not given satisfactory reply of the said mails to the complainant and this attitude of opposite party show that opposite party’s main intention was that to allure the customers and thereafter to implicate them in long term plan without their consent. The complainant raised the complaint regarding the same issue then the opposite party Executive/representative visited to

complainant’s house and suggested to continue the policy for at least 3 years in order to get his full 3 years premium amounts alongwith interest but opposite party even denied the refund of premium amount which complainant had paid 3 during years. The complainant was not interested to continue his present policy plan anymore and he desired to get his entire amount which he had paid in last 3 years of Rs.88,698/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from opposite party,  opposite party are bound to return to said amount to the complainant immediately without any delay. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 17.02.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                make the payment of Rs.88,698/- on account of return of premium amount alongwith interst @ 18% p.a. from the date of Ist premium i.e.31.03.2017 till the realization of the amount to the complainant.

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that after receiving the policy documents, if anything found contrary to the understanding of the policyholder about the policy terms and conditions, he/she can apply for the cancellation of the policy within15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document.  The said window period was called “Free Look Period”.  In such an event, the insurance company refunds the premium amount after deducting charges as applicable.  The instant policies under question was issued to

the complainant in the year 2017.  Since the complainant never requested for the cancellation of the subject policy under the free look period.  It was deemed that the terms and conditions of the policy were acceptable to the complainant.  It was pertinent to mention that the free look provision available to the complainant was mentioned on the welcome letter itself, i.e. first page of the policy document  It was submitted that the complainant applied through Mr. Nitin Bhatia, who was agent of the company, for the subject policy bearing NO. 22154857 and filed the proposal form bearing reference No. 673712236 by submitting the proposal  forms and other related supporting documents.  The policy features were duly explained to the complainant and post understanding the policy terms and benefits in its entirety, he filled up and signed the proposal form out of his own volition.  The policy document of the policy bearing No. 22154556 alongwith the welcome letter, premium paid receipt, etc. were dispatched to the complainant on 08.04.2017 through speed post and the POD NO. EA175338642IN and the same was duly received by them on dated 13.04.2017.  Thereafter the company issued the subject policy.  The complainant had  duly filed the proposal form in the presence of agent Mr. Nitin Bhatia, that after duly reading and understanding the policy the complainant, his wife and signed the proposal form and opted for the same.  It was very hard to believe that an educated professional and lawyer by profession, did not assess the risks of any investment and blindly signs on a blank paper.  The life assured had the knowledge, skill and wherewithal to understand and  continue a life insurance policy.  It was a moon shine defence opted by the complainant that papers mentioned the details of the policy were replaced and forged.  The opposite party company should not be benefitted in any manner by such illegal act, it was nothing but the figment of the imagination of the complainant. Opposite party

denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – PNB Metlife India Insurance Limited  with the prayer to: a)  make the payment of Rs.88,698/- on account of return of premium amount alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of Ist premium i.e.31.03.2017 till the realization of the amount to the complainant.  b)  pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Mahesh Chand Aggarwal, Ex.C-1 – Adhar card,, Ex.C-2 -  policy, Ex.C-3 to 5 – emails,, Ex.C-6 – legal letter, Ex.C-7 – postal receipt.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party  Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of opposite party,, photocopies of,  track consignment, Form,Benefit Illustration – Metlife Guaranteed Income Plan,  counter offer notice, letter dated 05.04.2017,, First premium receipt.

6.                It is evident from Ex.C-2 that the  the complainant had obtained Metlife Guaranteed Income Plan Policy from opposite party having policy No. 22154857 dated 31.03.2017 for a period of 10years i.e. upto 30.03.2016 for a

period of 10 years i.e. upto  31.03.2027 and its date of maturity of policy was 30.03.2027 and its  premium of Rs.29,556/- per annum from the date of policy till 7 years i.e. Rs.2,06,962/- in 7 years and after 7 years further 3  years there is no any premium and after 10 years.  It is evident from emails dated 20.06.2020, 27.06.2020 & 14.07.2020 vide Ex.C3 to C5 the opposite parties suo moto changed the signed page of the policy where premium term of 7 years and policy tenure of 10 years was mentioned and the policy tenure was changed form 10 years to 20 years and also premium terms was changed from 7 years to 10 years. The opposite party suggested to continue the policy for at least 3 years in order to get her full 3 years premium amounts alongwith interest but the opposite party denied the refund of the premium amount which  the complainant had paid 3 during years. The complainant is not interested to continue her policy plan anymore and requested opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.88,698/- which the complainant had paid to the opposite party since 31.03.2017 to 30.03.2019.

7.                          As per the proposal form alongwith declaration, the complainant applied through Mr. Nitin Bhatia, who was agent of the company, for the subject policy bearing NO. 22154857 and filed the proposal form bearing reference No. 673712236 by submitting the proposal  forms and other related supporting documents.  The policy features were duly explained to the complainant and post understanding the policy terms and benefits in its entirety, he filled up and signed the proposal form out of his own volition.  The policy document of the policy bearing No. 22154556 alongwith the welcome letter, premium paid receipt, etc. were dispatched to the complainant on 08.04.2017 through speed post and the POD NO. EA175338642IN and the same was duly received by them on dated 13.04.2017.  Opposite party further argued that after receiving the  policy document, if anything found contrary to the understanding of the policyholder

about the policy terms and conditions, he can apply for the cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document.  The said window period is called Free Look Period. In such an event, the insurance company refunds the premium amount after deducting charges as applicable.

8.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has stated at Bar that a telephonic message was received from the opposite party regarding an offer for compromise .

9.                After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to deduct the 15% as administrative charges from the  total amount.  There are no order as to costs. Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  19.12.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.