Nishan Masih, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an Ex- Serviceman and retired person from Indian Army. He retired from service on 28.02.2017. The complainant is maintaining his account with the OP No.3. After retirement the complainant approached the OP No.3 for depositing certain amount in shape of fixed deposits out of his service benefits. It is alleged that the complainant had given blank signed cheques to the manager of OP No.3. But the OP No.3 for his own interest and wrongful gain deposited the entire amount with PNB Met Life Bearing Policy No. 214110406 dated 03.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214134916 dated 07.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214381408 for Rs.1,00,000/ - and 14400637 dated 17.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant and 214119906 dated 05.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of his wife Darshna against the will and wishes of the complainant. The complainant opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in shape of Fixed Deposits so that he may maintain his family with the amount of interest to be received on fixed deposits. It is further alleged that the complainant who is a retired Havildar is getting very meager pension and he is not in a position to make payment of further installments of the above mentioned policies. The complainant is having minor children who are fully dependent upon him. Moreover, the complainant never opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in the above said policies. It is further alleged that when the complainant came to know about this fact, he approached the opposite parties time and again with a request to cancel the above mentioned Fixed deposits and to credit amount in question in his account along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due payment till actual realization, but the opposite parties always put the complainant with one or the other excuse also the complainant is in urgent need of money but the opposite parties failed to pay any heed to him. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony and physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to cancel the above mentioned policies and to make the payment of entire amount along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of deposit, till actual payment. Besides the insurance amount, the complainant may also be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of  opposite parties and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, opposite parties no.1and 2 appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed only to injure the interest & repudiation of answering opposite parties, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, that at the very outset the answering opposite parties denies the contentions, averments made by the complainant as the same are baseless and without any merit and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same and submit that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded  that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint with regard to Policy No. 22231666 which was proposed by the wife of the complainant namely Darshna Devi, that the complainant is himself guilty for his own act and conduct as the complainant and his wife has paid the initial premium under the policies and thereafter did not paid any premium and consequently the policies were lapsed due to non-payment of regular premiums, that the complainant with malafide did not disclose the true and correct facts before the Hon'ble Commission and has filed the false complaint only to get undue benefit at the cost of answering opposite parties. The present complaint is clear cut misuse of the Consumer Protection Act, that the contract of insurance between the complainant and opposite parties is governed by its terms & conditions, that the opposite parties are entitled to get the special cost of Rs.25,000/- from the Complainant for unnecessarily dragging them into uncalled litigation. It is pleaded that the Policy schedule filed by the complainant itself states the Premium paying term under the policies were of "5 or 10 years" and as such they were fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature and the complainant and his wife had received the policy documents and all the applicable charges, Premium paying terms, benefits etc., are duly mentioned in the policy and as such they were fully aware about all the terms and conditions and benefits. It is further pleaded that as per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. It is further pleaded that the real state of affair is that the answering opposite party received proposal application No. 214110406 dated 06.06.2017, 214134916 dated 08.06.2017, 214381408 dated 07.07.2017, 214400637 dated 17.07.2017 from complainant and proposal application No. 214119906 dated 05.06.2017 from the wife of complainant namely Darshana Devi, wherein they proposed for life insurance policies in their names under MetLife Money back plan and MetLife Guaranteed Income Plan through OP No.3. It is further pleaded that in the proposal forms the complainant and his wife declared to be 12th pass. The detail of the plan, policy term & premium paying terms were also duly mentioned in the proposal forms. The complainant appointed his daughter Neelakshi and son Sahil and wife as his nominee under the policies, whereas Darshana Devi appointed his daughter Saakshi as her nominee. The complainant and his wife signed the Proposal application form in English after admitting & understanding the contents thereof to be correct. After receiving the proposal form & documents, the opposite party issued different policies and the same were sent through speed post to the complainant and his wife which were duly received by complainant and his wife. It is further pleaded that the complainant himself places on record the first 3 pages of the policy documents. Since the complainant and his wife has duly received the policies and if the complainant and his wife were issued policies instead of FDR as alleged, then they can opt for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days as per regulation of 6(2) of IRDA, but despite the receipt of the same they did not raise any concern regarding issuance of the policies, meaning thereby they have accepted the terms & conditions of the policies.

          On merits, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and has pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Opposite parties No.3 and 4 did not appear and despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte wide order date 04.12.2020.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits of Nishan Masih (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A along with other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14.

6.       Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep (Senior Executive, PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd, Pathankot as Ex.OPW-1/A along with reply.

7.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by both the opposite parties.

9.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an Ex-Serviceman and retired person from Indian Army on 28.02.2017 and is maintaining his account with the OP No.3. It is further argued that after retirement the complainant approached the OP No.3 for depositing certain amount in shape of fixed deposits out of his service benefits and had given blank signed cheques to the manager of OP No.3, but the OP No.3 for his own interest and wrongful gain deposited the entire amount with PNB Met Life Bearing Policy No.214110406 dated 03.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214134916 dated 07.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214381408 for Rs.1,00,000/ - and 14400637 dated 17.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant and 214119906 dated 05.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/- in the name of his wife Darshna against the will and wishes of the complainant.

It is further argued that complainant opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in shape of Fixed Deposits so that he may maintain his family with the amount of interest to be received on fixed deposits. It is further argued that the complainant never opted to deposit the above mentioned amount in the above said policies. It is further argued that when the complainant came to know about this fact, he approached the opposite parties time and again with a request to cancel the above mentioned Fixed deposits and to credit amount in question in his account along with interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of due payment till actual realization, but the opposite parties refused to accede the  request of the complainant and as such there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

10.      On the other hand counsel for opposite party No. 1 and 2 has argued that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint with regard to Policy No. 22231666 which was proposed by the wife of the complainant namely Darshna Devi and the complainant is himself guilty for his own act and conduct as the complainant and his wife has paid the initial premium under the policies and thereafter did not paid any premium and consequently the policies were lapsed due to non-payment of regular premiums, that the complainant with malafide did not disclose the true and correct facts before the Hon'ble Commission and has filed the false complaint only to get undue benefit at the cost of answering opposite parties. It is further argued that as per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document and in the present case the  opposite party received proposal application No.214110406 dated 06.06.2017, 214134916 dated 08.06.2017, 214381408 dated 07.07.2017, 214400637 dated 17.07.2017 from complainant and proposal application No. 214119906 dated 05.06.2017 from the wife of complainant namely Darshana Devi, wherein they proposed for life insurance policies in their names under MetLife Money back plan and MetLife Guaranteed Income Plan through OP No.3. It is further argued that that in the proposal forms the complainant and his wife declared them self to be 12th pass. The detail of the plan, policy term & premium paying terms were also duly mentioned in the proposal forms and the complainant appointed his daughter Neelakshi and son Sahil and wife as his nominee under the policies, whereas Darshana Devi appointed his daughter Saakshi as her nominee. It is further argued that complainant and his wife signed the Proposal application form in English after admitting & understanding the contents thereof to be correct and after receiving the proposal form & documents, the opposite party issued different policies and the same were sent through speed post to the complainant and his wife which were duly received by complainant and his wife. It is further argued that that the complainant has himself placed on record the first 3 pages of the policy documents and since the complainant and his wife has duly received the policies and if the complainant and his wife were issued policies instead of FDR as alleged, in that case they could had opted for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days as per regulation of 6(2) of IRDA, but despite the receipt of the same they did not raise any concern regarding issuance of the policies, meaning thereby they have accepted the terms & conditions of the policies. As such in the end has requested for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

11.     We have heard the counsel for the complainant and counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and 2 and gone through the record.

12.     It is admitted fact that the complainant is account holder with opposite party No.3. It is further admitted fact that  the OP No.3 is having collaboration with  PNB Met Life and as such opposite party No.1 and 2 issued  Policy No. 214110406 dated 03.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214134916 dated 07.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/-, 214381408 for Rs.1,00,000/ - and 14400637 dated 17.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of the complainant and 214119906 dated 05.06.2017 for Rs.50,000/- in the name wife complainant. It is further admitted fact that vide letter dated 8.8.2019 copy of which is Ex C-13 the complainant had requested for concellation of the polices. The main contention of the counsel for the complainant is that amount was never deposited in the insurance policies, rather it was deposited in the FDRs with the bank, but the same was deposited by the bank with opposite party No. 1 and 2 in the shape of polices with different dates. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copies of the polices of the insurance Ex C1 to C 5 which have been issued in the month of June and July 2017, but as per documents on record the complainant requested the opposite parties for cancellation of the above mentioned polices on 8-8-2019 vide application Ex C 13 after a period of more than 2 years. It is not denied by the complainant that he did not receive the policy document and was denied the benefit of free look period as per law. The complainant and his wife has duly received the policies and if the complainant and his wife were issued policies instead of FDR as claimed in that case both were having option for the cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days as per regulation of 6(2) of IRDA, but despite the receipt of the same they did not raise any concern regarding issuance of the policies, meaning thereby they have accepted the terms & conditions of the policies.

13.     More over the last policy of insurance has been issued on 29.7.2017 and for the first time complainant requested for cancellation on 08.08.2019 after more than 2 years and present compliant has been filed on 28.09.2020 after more than 3 years, as such the claim of the complainant is itself time barred and as such we do not find any merit in the complaint, and as such the complaint is dismissed.

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Sept. 01, 2023                                               Member

*YP*