Delhi

New Delhi

CC/860/2013

LALIT RATTAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.860/2013                                                                                         Dated:

In the matter of:

Mrs. Lalit Rattan,

W/o Brig.(Retd.) S. K. Rattan,

R/o K-1004, Mahindra Aura Apartment,

Sector 110 A, New Palam Vihar, Gurgaon.

 

                ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

1. PNB METLIFE India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(Through its Managing Director),

1^st Floor, Himalaya House,

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

 

2. Mr. Sushant Rajput,

Regional Director,

Himalaya House,

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

   …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased the first mis-sold policy bearing No.00394369 from the OP and had paid three yearly l premium of Rs.50,000/- each of Metlif (now PNB Metlife) on 18.9.2007. On receipt of the policy, the complainant realized that the maturity date of policy in question is 18.10.2049 when he would be 100 years whereas the amount of coverage i.e.  sum assured was Rs.5,00,000/-.  The complainant  reverted back for clarification of the same and  was assured by the  agent  of OP that payment of three premiums were mandatory and the policy could be surrendered after five years. At the time of surrender, the complainant would receive double the amount invested over three years as the annual return would be 15-20%.

2.     From  August to September 2010, before the 4^th premium was due, Sales Managers, Surender Kumar and H.S. Arora, visited the house of the complainant and requested him to purchase fresh policy  in which previous policy was to remain in effect  and he would have to pay only two more premium as he had already paid three premiums. Being induced by the lucrative promise of the official of the OP, complainant purchased a second mis-sold  policy bearing No.20421691 in November 2010 by paying a premium of Rs.49,000/-, after going through the policy documents, complainant found that it was a new one and was not in continuation of the previous policy as assured by the official of OP at the time of issuing the new policy. 

3.     Complainant approached officials of the OP who asked complainant to file a written complaint against his grievance and as such on 26.5.2011, complainant lodged a written complaint with the OP but no action was taken by the OP for redrassal of his grievance.  After continuous protest an appointment was fixed by the OP for 27.2.2012 with the officials of the OP at complainant’s residence which include Branch Head and two Sales Manager, Sh. Surender Kumar, Sales Manager requested the complainant  not to lodge any complaint against him as he would lose his job and was supporting six members of his family.  The officials of the OP admitted the policy was mis-sold by telling lies.  On their suggestion, complainant moved an application for partial withdrawal application.  Vide letter dated 9.3.2012, OP accepted partial withdrawal of Rs.60,000.

4.     After fewdays later of partial withdrawal foreclosure notice dated 8.5.2012 was sent thereby asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac to keep the policy active after partial withdrawal.  When the payment was not made by complainant, OP issued a letter dt. 5.9.2012 intimating the auto foreclosure of the first policy and enclosing the cheque of Rs.49,807.77/- dt. 31.8.2012 against the  Fund Value of Rs.83515.77/- which is unjustified.  On continuous follow-up of complainant, OP refunded a sum of Rs.98,000/- on 6.7.2012 against the two premiums paid for 2^nd policy NO.20421691 frequently sold that too without any penal interest.  The complainant wrote various letters, e-mails and even sent legal notice to the OP for the penal interest on the amount lying with OP but nothing has been done by the OP, hence this complaint.

5.     Complaint has been contested by the OP. It denied any deficiency in service on its part.  It is stated that policy was issued to the  complainant on the basis of information provided by the complainant.  The policy was sent to the complainant on 10.10.2007, the complainant has remitted the renewal premium till 10.10.2009 and did not make the further payment, resulting in the policy mover to premium discontinuous status.  The complainant received partial withdrawal of Rs.60,000/- against the first policy on 9.3.2012 through cheque, due to this the surrender value become less then one annualized  premium and as such policy was foreclosed on 10.10.2012.  The foreclosure amount of Rs.49,807.77/- was paid to the complainant vide cheque dt. 5.9.2012.  However, on the request of the complainant the policy was reinstated  after reversing the partial withdrawal  transaction.

6.     The 2^nd policy was taken by the complainant only after complete understanding the terms and conditions of the policy.  However, on continuous protest and complainant filed by the complainant with OP, OP cancelled the 2^nd policy and refunded the amount on 4.7.2012.  The complainant sent the satisfactory e-mail dt. 11.7.2012 to the OP which clarified that the dispute has been resolved between the parties. The complainant has not raised any dispute regarding the 1st policy within the free-looking-period, it was presumed that the contract was legally concluded between the parties.  It is further stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint to extort undue gain well known  the facts that OP had taken all the required steps to satisfied the complainant’s grievance and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

 

8.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

9.     We have gone through the documents/annexures filed by the parties along with their respective pleadings. On the request of partial withdrawal  by the complainant, OP had transferred a sum of Rs.60 ,000/- through cheque which was duly admitted by the complainant.  The complainant had also received a cheque of Rs.49,807.77/- against  the foreclosure of the 1^st policy, due to discontinuous of premium the policy undergone into lapse status.  However on the request of the complainant OP reinstate the first policy.  Perusal of the  e-mail dt. 11.7.2012 sent by  complainant to the OP shows that,  through this e-mail he acknowledged that his /complaint was diligently resolved by the OP in his favour. Vide this e-mail she has not only acknowledged the redressal of her grievance but also appreciated the efforts done by the official of the OP in resolving the issue.  On her request, the OP not only refunded the amount deposited on account of premium against the 2^nd policy but also reinstated the first policy, despite having lapse due to discontinuous of premium.  Perusal of the record shows that on various occasion, OP acted according to the sweet will of the complainant and provided him the necessary assistance they could provide.  After reinstating the policy, the complainant failed to pay further premium well knowing the facts that non-payment of the premium would led  the policy undergo into lapsed status. 

 

10.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant received the 1^st policy documents in the year 2007 but  has not protested or has exercised his right of free-looking period, as such, the contract was deemed to be concluded between the parties and the terms of the same were binding upon both the parties. After the partial withdrawal, the complainant was well aware that non-payment of further premium by him would led to the lapse status of the policy but he did not pay further premium. 

 

11. Admittedly, the complainant has not paid further premium. Perusal of the file shows that from 2007-2010 the complainant had deposited Rs.1,50,000/- with the OP.

 

12.    In these circumstances, we direct OP to refund a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the complainant against the 3 premiums of 1^st policy for the period 2007-2009 after adjusting the partial withdrawal,  if any. 

 

13.    With the above observations, the present complaint be disposed of. The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on 05/04/2019.

 

                                 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                         PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                         MEMBER