Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 203/30.10.2018
Smt. Kamlesh Jain wife of Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain
R/o 1159, 2nd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006 (through attorney Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain) …Complainant
Versus
OP1- M/s P.N.B Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd
Office: 10201-10202, 3rd Floor, Padam Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
OP2- M/s P.N.B. Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.
4th Floor, Spaze, Platinum Towers, Gurgaon, Sohna
Road, Sector-47, Gurugram-122018 (Haryana) ...Opposite Parties
Senior Citizen case
Date of filing 30.10.2018
Date of Order: 03 11.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) – The complaint is under the signature of complainant and she has grievances against the OPs that she being a senior citizen, was approached by Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandi Chowk Branch to buy a policy of OPs. She purchased a policy for three years. However, after initial payment, she was issued policy for ten years and then she approached the OPs and protested it, it was told that there were clerical mistake and then rectified policy for three years was issued. On maturity date, she asked for realisation of amount. Then, she was again asked that policy was for ten years. She further protested & stopped her banker from any payment. She was cheated by the OPs and its agent and there is also deficiency of services besides unfair trade practices. That is why she seeks refund of her amount and compensation.
1.2. The complaint is opposed by the OP1 & OP2 by their joint reply that neither there is any cause of action for the complaint nor there was any deficiency of services by the OPs vis-à-vis the complaint is abused of process of law as the complainant failed to take appropriate steps within free look period, instead the complaint was filed. The policy was issued on the basis of proposal form options and complainant is bound by covenant of policy strictly.
2.1. (Case of complainant) –On 29.02.2016, Manager of Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch with the help of OP1's agent Ms. Parul Sharma approached & asked the complainant, she bought policy for three years for premium Rs. 99,999/- per year. The complainant was not interested because of her advance age but to keep her money in savings. However, Ms. Parul Sharma induced the complainant to go for policy being special for senior citizen and to deposit yearly installment of Rs. 99,999/- for three years and complainant will get amount of Rs. 3,72,000/- after completion of three years. She also assured the complainant that she has been authorized by the Bank Manager to be seated in the Branch of OPs and to convince the aspirants of PNB Met-life policies. Thus, complainant met Mr. Mehra, Manager, PNB, Chandni Chowk and on confirmation about the assurance of Ms. Parul Sharma, the complainant became ready to go for the policy.
2.2. On 29.02.2016 the complainant paid first installment of Rs. 99,999/- by ECS and on 28.03.2016 she received policy document but shocked to see that she has been cheated as policy issued was not for three year but for ten years, which was never opted for, since she is an old lady/senior citizen and she had no intention to put her money for ten years.
In order to seek clarification, she met Ms. Parul Sharma and Manager Mr. Mehra, however, they put off the matter on the one pretext or the other, it was told that there was typographical error in the policy document of ten years and policy of three year will be provided shortly. On 02.04.2016 the complainant was provided fresh policy document in which period of three year was mentioned. Thence, the OPs withdrew 2nd installment on 08.03.2017 and last/3rd installment on 07.03.2018 of Rs. 99,999/- each from the saving bank account of complainant through ECS.
2.3. Since the policy was concluded in the month of March 2018, the complainant went to the OPs/branch of PNB for payment of final amount, she was told that the policy was not for period of three years but for ten years, which shocked her. The complainant had shown them policy document that it was for three years but they denied as if it was not issued by them or the same was forged document.
The complainant had filled-in form under her signature but she was further shocked to seeing that her signatures and writing on form were totally forged and fabricated, it was also not in her writing, how it had happened is known to OPs?. Moreover, mobile phone number mentioned therein does not belong to the complainant, the same has also been fabricated with mala-fide intention. The complainant has been cheated by them, since she has put her hard earned income and she never put the money for ten years. The OPs, Mr. Mehra and Ms. Parul Sharma of OPs have also caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain them.
2.4. On 11.06.2018, the complainant had received two letters from OP2/Mumbai office of OPs that matter is being looked into but nothing was done. On 09.07.2018 the complainant replied all the points asked from her besides furnishing copy of PAN card. On 13.08.2018 and 21.08.2018, the PNB’s official also sent letter regarding their requirements, which the complainant had already been complied with.
She got stopped deducting further installment by letter dated 06.04.2018 and she also lodged a complaint dated 01.05.2018 with the Bank to look into the matter. The complainant was caused harassment and mental agony, she was also visiting the OPs besides telephone calls [since there was fraud and misrepresentation by the OPs] to refund her money but no result. That is why, the present complaint being an efficacious remedy.
2.5 The complainant seeks refund of amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- of Term Plan assured for three years with interest of 24 % pa, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account physical harassment, mental pain and agony besides cost of litigation and other appropriate relief. The complaint is accompanied with special power of attorney in favour of Sunil Kumar Jain to prosecute the complaint, copy of tainted proposal form, policy document dated 09.03.2016 (for ten years, being cancelled), another policy document dated 09.03.2016 (for three years, being rectified), the complaint against Mr Mehra, Manager PNB and agent Ms Parul Sharma [code no.99073927], correspondence exchanged and copy of application furnishing documents to OPs.
3.1 (Case of OPs)- On 04.02.2019, the OPs have filed their joint written statement dated 30.01.2019, it has been styled in its own way & convenience (by splitting it into various heads - preliminary submissions, preliminary objections, facts of the case, para-wise reply, which also inherent arguments and case law). However, the complaint is opposed that neither there is any cause of action for the complaint nor any deficiency of services by the OPs vis-à-vis the complaint is abused of process of law as the complainant failed to take appropriate steps within free look period, instead the complaint was filed. The complainant is not a consumer. Since she bought the policy by investment purposes, she is not a consumer (while placing reliance on Birla Technologies Ltd. Vs. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 525). It involves question of law inclusive of allegation of fraud and forgery and wrong-selling of the policy, therefore, the consumer Fora lacks the jurisdiction but civil court may adjudicate it by detailed evidence [reliance is placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC); UCO Bank Vs S D Wadhwa RP no.2479/2008 dod 24.7.2013 (NC) etc].
3.2. The complainant had applied for insurance policy under the plan Met-Smart Platinum Plan for premium payment term for 05 years and coverage term for 40 years with annual premium of Rs. 99,999/-, the complainant had gone through the proposal form and then applied for the policy. The policy was issued in accordance with the IRDA (PPI) Regulations 2002 and the complainant was sent policy document in time but complainant failed to exercise the option, the parties strictly bound by terms of the policy.
3.3. The OPs deny all allegations of cheating, deficiency of services and of unfair trade practices alleged by the complainant, which have been mentioned in paragraph 2 above. It is further supplemented that paragraph nos. 5-6 of the complaint were missing, they are also denied (it is appropriate to mention here that paragraph no. 5 is on page 5 of the complaint and paragraph no. 6 is partly on page 5 and remaining is on page 6, the page 6 also contains paragraph 7 and partly paragraph 8 of the complaint. The paragraphs 7 and 8 have been replied by the OPs).
Since the policy document was issued on the basis of proposal form filled in and the policy was accordingly issued, there was no reason to allege that policy was for a tenure of three years or it caused any shock or surprise to the complainant to make the claim. Otherwise, the OPs deny for want of knowledge about the agent and Manager of PNB since OP is a separate legal entity for PNB. The complaint is vague and baseless and no case is made out against the OPs.
3.4. Since the policy was issued on 08.03.2016, free look period of 15 days had expired in March 2016 and from that day the complaint filed on 30.10.2018 is after two years and seven months. It is barred by time. (while placing reliance on Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). Since the complainant failed to comply the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the question of refund of the premium does not arise (while placing reliance on Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Siba Prasad Dash, reported as IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC). Since the complainant failed to raise any objection towards the policy during free look period, therefore, the complainant had agreed to the policy and its terms & conditions [while placing reliance upon Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (R.P. No. 2870/2012 decided on 16.10.2012); Harish Kumar Chadha Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (decided on 07.10.2013 in Revision Petition No. 3271 of 2013); Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition No. 634 of 2012, decided on 02.05.2013]. The policy was issued on the basis of proposal form and the same is binding, the insurer is under no obligation to issue the policy on oral promises as alleged by the complainant [while putting reliance on (a) M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33; (b); Kishor Chandrakant Rathod Vs. The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another (NC dod 21.05.2014 in RP 3390/ 2013); (c) Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (NC dod 02.05.2013 in Revision Petition No. 634/ 2012 and (d) Prema and Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC)]. The parties are bound by terms and conditions of the policy and no deviation from the same is permissible (reliance is placed on (a) Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons Internation [2013 (1) SCALE 410]; (b) Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 567]; (c) Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhavacharya (RP 211 of 2009); (d) General Assurance Society Limited Vs. Chandumull Jain & Anr (1966) 3 SCR 500 and (e) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal I 2003 CPJ 393. For want of deficiency of services the complaint deserves dismissal (the OPs reliance upon Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66).
The reply is accompanied with welcome letter dated 28.12.2018, policy document, proposal form and letter dated 11.06.2018.
4.1 (Replication of complainant) – The complainant files rejoinder to the written statement and it responses all the allegations of reply, the same are denied one by one. The written statement is inconsistent as a new fact has been stated that it was smart platinum plan for 05 years and coverage term of 40 years vis-à-vis welcome letter dated 28.12.2018 clearly shows that it was policy of 10 years, which was not opted by the complainant; she had opted the policy for three years. She is a consumer since policy was not taken for commercial purposes. She was issued the rectified policy and after three years, when she approached for relief of amount, then it came to her knowledge that a further fraud has been played upon her. Moreover, after receipt of policy document, she had immediately approached the OPs to issue policy for correct period of policy. The period of two years for filing the complaint is to be computed when she went to the OPs for release of amount on maturity of policy after three years. The complainant reiterates her complaint as correct.
5.1. (Evidence)- Complainant Smt. Kamlesh Jain led her evidence, it is on the lines of complaint supplemented with all the documents with the complaint.
5.2.The OPs led evidence by filing detailed affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Sharm, Senior Manager (Legal), it is also on the pattern of written statement supplemented with documents filed with the reply.
6. (Final hearing)- Both the sides filed their respective written arguments. Moreover, Sh. Sushil Kumar, special attorney of complainant made the oral submission and Sh. Abhinav Chauhan, Advocate for OP1 and OP2 made the oral submissions.
7.1 (Findings)- The contentions of both the sides are considered keeping in view facts, features and evidence of the parties besides the provisions of law and case law presented. There are rival contentions on various issues, the same are taken one by one. It is relevant to mention here that the case law/or its reasons have already been referred, which was relied upon by the OPs in their pleadings, the same is not being repeated here.
7.2. The OPs contend that there are allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by the complainant, therefore, under such situation it needs adjudication by the Civil Court; the Consumer Fora lacks the jurisdiction on the subject matter. Whereas it is opposed by the complainant that facts and circumstances of the case are based on documentary record as well as the circumstances explained in evidence, it can be decided by the present Consumer Commission, it does not require adjudication by the Civil Court.
In order to decide this issue, it needs to refer the record and it spells out the answer. Firstly, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint are on page 5 and page 6 of the complaint, it mentions that insurance policy cover was issued for 10 years instead of policy term of 3 years, besides the proposal form seemed by the complainant was forged and fabricated as the same were not bearing the signature of the complainant. From that point of view allegations of forged document and fabrication of record were made by the complainant against the OPs. Whereas the reply of paragraph 5 and 6 of the complaint were responded in the written statement as if paragraph 5 and 6 are missing in the complaint. Had it been the case, the reply to paragraph 7 and 8 would not have been possible because the paragraph 6 of the complaint is continuing on page 6 of the complaint besides paragraphs 7 & 8. To say, the OPs have not replied paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint.
As per proceedings dated 03.01.2019, the OPs failed to file reply and sought time from the Forum, which was given upto 17.01.2019 but again reply was filed and on request time was allowed with cost upto 04.02.2019, when reply was finally filed and cost was paid. Had the OPs found missing of pages, they could have requested the Commission or by way of application to provide them the appropriate pages containing paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint. It infers that there is intentionally no reply to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint by the OPs.
Secondly, the other allegations are pertaining to letter dated 09.03.2006 (in which the tenure of policy was mentioned 3 years and premium term was also of 3 years), which was advised by the OPs that the same are forged and fabricated letter as if it was never issued by the OPs. Whereas according to complainant, this letter was issued by the OPs when she had protested immediately on receipt of letter in which the premium payment term was of ten years and she was issued the letter of 09.03.2016 for policy term and payment term of 3 years.
This rival plea is being considered from the point of document on record. Many a time it happens that a document leaves footprint which speaks of contemporary situation and it is not an exception to the present case. The letter dated 09.03.2016 (in which the tenure of policy was mentioned 3 years and premium term was also of 3 years) is not a letter confining to the premium payment terms and policy terms but it also contains other circumstances of name of complainant, her address, signature of authorize signatory, logo and also bar code (in computer language). It is never the case of OPs that the logo appearing on this letter does not belong to OPs or bar code is manipulated.
Therefore, it is held that when sufficient material is available to adjudicate the issue and it does not involve complicated question of facts and law, the issue can be dealt in a summary procedure by the present Consumer Commission/Fora. Thus, there is no need of adjudication by the Civil Court. The present Consumer Commission/Forum is competent to decide the issue.
7.3. The OPs had objection that for missing of paragraphs 5 and 6 in the complaint, the same are being denied, however, this plea of OPs do not sustained in view of the conclusion drawn in paragraph 7.2 above. It is held that there is no response by OPs to the material paragraphs of 5 and 6 of the complaint.
7.4. According to OPs, the policy was issued in March 2016, however, the OPs had received the complaint on 30.05.2018, on the face of it the complaint is beyond period of two years. The complaint is barred by prescribed period. Whereas the complainant has reservations that the policy was for a period of three years and when she visited the office of OPs on maturity of 3 years of policy, it was March 2018 and immediately after realizing the misrepresentation and cheating to her, she lodged her grievances with the authorities and then complaint was filed on 30.10.2018. It is within the prescribed period.
So far, this issue is concerned, period is to be computed when right to sue arises, in other words on commencement of cause of action. The complainant was issued letter dated 09.03.2016, which she had received in April 2016 and as per the tenure of policy, she went to the office of OPs on maturity time in March 2018. This time give rise for cause of action of denial of maturity claim and the complaint was filed on 30.10.2018. The period of two years will be computed from the cause of action arisen in March 2018 and the complaint filed on 30.10.2018 is within the period of two years. The complaint is not barred by period of limitation. This issue is also decided against the OPs. It is not out of context to mention that OPs asserts that they received the copy of complaint in May 2018 first time from complainant, which is after two years from of policy date. Such reasons of OPs are misplaced?
7.5 The OPs have another objection that complainant is not 'a consumer' since the complainant purchased the policy to earn back amount of Rs. 3,72,000/- after 3 years paying premium of Rs. 99,999/- each year. Whereas according to complainant, she is a senior citizen, she maintains saving bank account and the policy was purchased on inducement of OPs, their agent and Manager of Bank.
By comparing the submission of both sides, both the parties have not expressed their exact intentions. From the submissions of OPs, it appears the OPs intend to say that the complainant had invested the amount in policy to earn interest and it is a commercial activity. But on the other side, the complainant intends to say that being in the higher age of senior citizen, she had to keep the money in saving bank account just to earn the interest and policy was bought on showing security aspect by the OPs and its agent. By taking this aspect of submissions, the complainant is not indulging in the commercial activity to earn profits by taking this policy for a limited period of 3 years and the OPs have also not proved that complainant has been in the business of investment in the insurance policies to make gains and profits alike in business. Therefore, it is held it is not a case of earning of profit out of the insurance policy and for want of business or commercial activities, the complainant is a consumer. This issue is also decided against the OPs.
7.6 The OPs also took stand that it is an independent legal entity from Punjab National Bank and they have nothing to do inter-se relation between the Punjab National Bank or its employees or agents. Whereas, according to complainant it was OPs and their agents who ensured the security of the amount vis-à-vis Ms. Parul Sharma was working from the venue of OPs, where the complainant had visited and purchased the policy.
It needs to look at the record. There is clear evidence that complainant was approached by Bank and office of OPs through Ms. Parul Sharma, an agent, who entertained the complainant. In case Ms. Parul Sharma is an agent of Punjab National Bank, even then the OPs have provided the platform (in the form of space, place, data, stationery and other facilities in its premises) including to entertain the visitors and to interact with them. No unauthorized person can conduct the business from the office of OPs. In other words, the OPs have authorized Ms. Parul Sharma to entertain aspirants and to sell the policies of OPs. Moreover, policy cover mentions the names of Ms Parul Sharma with Code in the policy, she has been recognized so. The OPs cannot escape from their responsibilities nor they can be exonerated on the plea that it is a separate legal entity from the Punjab National Bank. This issue is also disposed off.
7.7 In view of the aforementioned discussion and conclusions on various issues, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complainant was issued welcome letter dated 09.03.2016 by the OPs (in which the tenure of policy was mentioned 10 years and premium term was also of 10 years) under bar code and signature of Sh. Anil PM, Authorised signatory. The complainant had protested it and there is a cross by pen to communicate that it was cancelled. The complainant was issued another welcome letter dated 09.03.2016 (in which the tenure of policy was mentioned 3 years and premium term was also of 3 years) under bar code and also under the signature of same author, Sh. Anil PM, Authorised signatory.
(ii) As per cancelled letter dated 09.03.2016 the policy term was 40 years, however, subsequent letter dated 09.03.2016, the policy term was 3 years. The OPs took a contrary plea in their written statement that the policy was issued for premium payment term of 5 years and coverage term was of 40 years. In addition, OPs have filed their own separate welcome letter dated 28.12.2018 for premium term of 10 years and policy term for 40 years and this letter is under the signature of Shri Vijay Nene, Director. What was the occasion for OPs to issue this letter in December 2018, when no fresh proposal form was filled in?
(iii) It is already held that welcome letter dated 09.03.2016 (in which the tenure of policy was mentioned 3 years and premium term was also of 3 years) was issued under bar code of OPs and also under the signature of same author, Sh. Anil PM, Authorised signatory. To say the OPs could not establish that the letter issued under its bar code was not belonging to it, it proves that the premium tenure was 3 years and policy tenure was also 3 years; the policy contract was for same period.
(iv) The plea of complainant (that she requested for policy premium and tenure of 3 years) is getting corroboration from the welcome letter dated 09.03.2016 issued under bar code proved by the complainant.
(v) The parties are bound by terms and conditions of the policy, however, the policy contract is to be entered into on the basis of terms and conditions settled. Whereas the circumstances of this case are suggesting that the complainant proposed premium and tenure of policy for 3 years each and consequent thereto the policy document was issued, firstly for 10 years but on protest it was rectified/corrected to the agreed tenure of 3 years by welcome letter dated 09.03.2016. Therefore, the contract entered was in terms of welcome letter dated 09.03.2016 having premium tenure of 3 years and policy tenure of 3 years. On completion of this tenure the complainant was entitled to ask for maturity amount.
(vi) The OPs contends that free look period of 15 days was over and terms of the policy for 10 years premium and 40 years tenure was deemed to be accepted, is misplaced since the complainant had received the welcome letter for 10 years/40 years tenure and immediately it was protested, then correct policy letter was issued. It would not be acceptable first to issue to policy letter for period not agreed upon and when it was rectified by the OPs itself by another letter, the same was denied. The plea of free look period clause will not be at avail of the OPs.
The OPs could not establish of no breach of any terms and conditions of the policy which was for period of 3 years.
(vii) Since the period of policy was matured and complainant is entitled for refund of the amount and for want of breach of any term or condition of the policy, the OPs could not forfeit the maturity amount, which was assured as Rs. 3,72,000/-.
(viii) There is deficiency of services, unfair trade practice and mal-practice too on the part of OPs.
8.1 Thus the complainant is held entitled for amount of Rs. 3,72,000/- the maturity amount assured by the OPs when policy for tenure of 3 years was taken and complainant had paid all the installments of Rs. 99,999/- each regularly.
8.2. The complainant has sought interest at the rate of 24% pa, however, it has not been substantiated as how interest at this rate will be payable by OPs vis a vis the complainant is deprived of her money and its use, it entitles the complainant for interest on maturity amount. Therefore, interest at the rate of 7% pa is allowed in her favour and against OPs, which would be justified for both ends, interest will be computed from the date of complaint till realization of amount against the OPs.
8.3. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for causing physical & mental agony and other harassment. The complainant is senior citizen. The circumstances are abundantly clear for harassment, agony, deficiency of services & unfair trade practice at the end of OPs. It entitles the complainant for compensation. However, the compensation should be reasonable & commensurate to situations & circumstances of case. Thus, compensation of Rs.20,000/- is determined in favour of complainant and against OPs.
8.4. The complainant is also seeking other appropriate relief. What it could be? Whether punitive damages or else? Whether it would be fit case to award punitive damages?.
What punitive damages means and what is its purpose? The punitive damages ( or in other words exemplary damages) are assessed and awarded in order to pinch respondent for outrageous/intolerant behaviour and/or to refrain it or to deter others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed basis of law suit. This damage is also imposed to reform defaulting party as well as to deter others from indulging in such wrongs. To say, a faulting party shall add to its experience to avoid its repeat. The punitive damages are generally given in civil action, however, there is also provision in section 14(1)(d) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for punitive damages. The punitive damages are not fine or penalty as fine is imposed in criminal trials.
It needs to refer the evidence on record, when complainant received policy letter, it was for ten years, she immediately reported to OPs and she was advised that is a clerical error in the letter and OPs also issued another letter under bar-code of OPs for policy premium and tenure for three years. When, complaint visits OPs for release of amount on maturity of three years, she was again told that policy was for 10 years by refusing policy letter issued for three years tenure. The OPs put a new plea in written statement that policy was for the tenure of 40 years and premium of Rs.99,999/- was payable for 05 years, which never existed. Thus, it is fit case to award punitive damages and the same are quantified as Rs.25,000/- in favour of complainant and against OPs, keeping in view all circumstances. It is upto discretion of OPs to get it recovered from their defaulting officers/officials/representatives/agents, if so advised, being its in-house arrangements.
8.5. The complainant also seeks litigation cost, she also deserves so, therefore, costs of Rs.10,000/- is allowed in favour of complainant against OPs.
8.6 Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,72,000/- along-with simple interest of 7% p.a. from date of complaint till realization of amount, compensation of Rs.20,000/- & costs of Rs.10,000/- apart from punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case the amount is not paid within 30 days of receipt of this Order, then interest rate will be 9%pa on the amount of Rs. 3,72,000/- (in place of 7%pa).
9. [Further directions to OPs] - There was occasion to decide another complaint & an application under sec. 340 CrPC [Balbir Singh Vs PNB & PNB Metlife Insurance Company - CC no.126/2018 & M.A. No.3/2023], under the Consumer Protection Act, in that decision dated 25.07.2023 on complaint not only complaint was allowed but also punitive damages were imposed, since another senior citizen was lured and asked to take policy, who deposited the premium with OPs but policy was intentionally issued in the name of his young son (who was actually nominee), which was proved by the said complainant. In that case also, there was another similar situated authorised agent Ms. Anu Nagpal. This Shri Rajeev Sharma of OPs had also filed affidavit against said agent Ms Anu Nagal in the proceedings of application.
In the present case, Ms. Parul Sharma is authorized agent. It appears that in order to secure funds and/or to achieve certain targets, there is indulgence in unacceptable practice. It is being viewed seriously. It is to be curbed at the level of OPs and concerned Bank. The OPs have to ensure, since services of such representatives/agents are being availed, then protection of all aspects including data is the responsibility of Insurer as well as concerned Bank, who provide platform, access to premises, space, office stationery, data etc without any compromise on any count. The interest of aspirants or policy holders cannot be compromised. With this observation and directions, the complaint is disposed off.
10. Announced on this 3rd November, 2023 [कार्तिक 12, साका 1945].
11. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances. Moreover, copy of this order be also sent to Head Office of PNB for appropriate information and action.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
