Delhi

North East

CC/71/2021

Vinod Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.B. Met Life - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.71/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vinod Yadav, S/o Lt. Sh. Mahesh Chand Yadav, R/o H.No. 18/588, Amar Colony, East Gokulpuri, Mandoli Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.         3.         4.	PNB Met Life Karkardooma Community Center Vikash Marg Delhi 110092 Through its Director   The Manager Punjab National Bank Branch- Shahbazpur till mode, Loni, Ghaziabad 201102, Uttar Pradesh   Sh. Sourabh Jain Punjab National Bank Branch- Shahbazpur till mode, Loni, Ghaziabad 201102, Uttar Pradesh   Ashish Srivastav Agent of PNB Met Life Plan PNB Met Life Insurance Company A-13/001, 3rd Floor, Synergy Tower, Near J.P Institute Gate No. 1 Noida Sector 62, Noida 201309	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

16.04.2021 02.06.2023 04.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that agriculture land of the Complainant had been acquired by the Government and in lieu of that a compensation of Rs. 22.5 lakhs each was given to the Complainant and his mother in 2017. After receiving the said amount, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 for depositing a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs in the form of fixed deposit for 5 years but Opposite Party No. 2 asked the complainant to meet Opposite Party No. 3. After that Opposite Party No. 2 assured and promised that Opposite Party No. 3 would get fixed the amount in fixed deposit for 5 years and on the assurance of Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 the complainant, his wife and his mother deposited the amount of  Rs. 4,99,000/-, 2,01,000/- and Rs. 2,01,000/- respectively. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 3 obtained several signatures on some blank papers, I.D proofs and cheques which were only signed by the Complainant, his wife and his mother. No paper books, policy bond etc. were supplied to the Complainant and in the month of January 2019, Opposite Party No. 1 called the Complainant and demanded a premium of Rs. 4,99,000/- for policy bearing no. 22436550 in the name of Complainant, Rs. 2,01,000/- for the policy bearing no. 22451531 in the name of wife of the Complainant, and  Rs. 2,01,000/- for policy bearing no. 22452252 in the name of mother of the Complainant. Complainant never agreed and asked for obtaining insurance policy as issued and given to the Complainant. The said insurance policies were issued and given to the Complainant without the consent and permission in the grab of scheme of fixed deposit as per banking rule.  Complainant stated that no inquiry was conducted in respect of financial status in future because the Complainant has no huge source of income to pay the instalment of insurance policy. Thereafter, Complainant visited the official address of Opposite Parties. In this regard, Complainant had moved some applications cum complaints regarding refunding of amount with interest.  After that in the month of November 2017 and January 2020 only policy amount was refunded by the Opposite Parties to wife and mother of the Complainant and policy amount of the Complainant was again forcefully reinvested by Opposite Parties in some met Dhan Samriddi vide policy bearing no. 23107967 by saying that “this policy would give Rs. 7,50,000/- within 5 years”. Again no policy document supplied to the Complainant. On 29.02.2020, complainant collected the documents of policy from Post office then the Complainant came to know that this policy would give only Rs. 6,23,000/- after 10 years. In this regard Complainant had moved some applications cum complaints regarding refunding of amount with interest but no fruitful result was served to the Complainant. Complainant has filed the complaint before the insurance ombudsmen but insurance ombudsmen repudiated the claim by saying that   “beyond free look period”.  Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties but no payment had been released by the Opposite Parties till date, however, vague reply was sent by the Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to make the entire payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest to the Complainant and award the cost on the Opposite Parties for harassment, mental agony and also towards the litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 to contest the case despite service of notice. Hence, Opposite Party No. 3 and Opposite Party No. 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

3. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is stated that the Complainant has submitted three proposal form that is for himself, for his wife and for his mother respectively, along with initial premium/first premium amount for the purchase of “PNB Met Endowment Savings Plan” for himself, his wife and his mother. The basic sum assured of the Complainant was Rs. 24,65,469/- after 10 years and the premium paying term was 5 years. When the second premium became due, the Complainant raised hue and cry. The Complainant approached it for redressal of his grievance and for cancellation of policies. In order to resolve the issue the policies of the mother and wife of the Complainant were cancelled and the Complainant offered the resolution to convert his policy into a Single Premium Policy. Thereafter, new proposal was logged in by utilizing the fund of the old policy of the Complainant. At that time the Complainant was informed regarding the contents of the product and its nature. After issuance of the said policy and delivery of the policy documents, the free look period for the policy was expired on 18.02.2020 but the Complainant did not raised any objection. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

4. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is false. It is stated that there is no cause of action against it. Opposite Party No. 2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Arijit Basu, Senior Manager- Legal of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

7. To support its case Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Shri Sohil Kumar, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No. 2, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.  We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that he has approached Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Punjab National Bank for fixed deposit for 5 years. The total amount which was to be deposited in fixed deposit was Rs. 4,99,000/- in his name, 2,01,000/- in the name of his wife and Rs. 2,01,000/- in the name of his mother. It is his case that instead of depositing this amount in the form of fixed deposit the Opposite Party No. 1 issued three insurance policies. One was in the name of his mother and the other was in the name of his wife and the third one was in his name. The Complainant never agreed for purchasing the said insurance policies. Then the Complainant moved complaint for refunding their amount along with interest. In the month of November 2019 and January 2020 the policy amount was refunded in respect of the policies of his wife and his mother and the amount of his insurance policy was forcefully invested in some “Dhan Samriddi”. On the other hand the case of Opposite Party No. 1 is that the policy amount of the Complainant was reinvested in “Dhan Samriddi” with the consent of the Complainant. This fact has been specifically mentioned by the Opposite Party No. 1 in its written statement and the Complainant has not controverted or denied this fact by opting not to file rejoinder. Further, the Opposite Party No. 1 in its evidence filed by way of affidavit has also specifically mentioned this fact and the Complainant has not controverted this fact in his evidence. The case of the Complainant is that his insurance policy amount was forcibly converted to Dhan Samriddi. The Complainant has not made any complaint before any Forum in this regard nor he opted to cancel the policy during the free look period. Therefore, under these circumstances the allegations made in the complaint cannot be believed.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 04.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)