A brief facts of the case of the complainant is that the complainant namely Sri. Subrata Das S/O – Sri. Suresh Ch. Das of Rabindra Nagar, P.O. – Alipurduar Court, P.S. + Dist. – Alipurduar went to Punjab National Bank, Alipurduar Branch on 26/02/2021 for fixing some amount where the O.P No. 2 being the employee of the O.P No. 1 and 3 met with the complainant and the O.P No. 2 suggested the complainant that if the amount fixed at PNB MetLife Company for five years then were benefit come out with 8.17% interest per month. The complainant was made convinced and ready to fix a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for five years with 8.17% interest per month and signed in a blank form on good faith. The O.P No. 2 got signed oneself form for five year scheme but on 15/03/2021 the complainant was shocked when he got two insurance policies issued by the PNB MetLife Insurance Com. Ltd. in favour of the complainant Vide Policy No. 23693664 Dated -06/03/2021, maturity date on 27/02/2033 and Policy No. 23695382 Dated – 06/03/2021, maturity date on 28/02/2044 which were different form which he had applied for and GST charged surprised by the O.P No. 2 with ulterior motive. On 02/03/2021 Rs.26,125/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were debited from the complainant account by the O.P No. 1 without any consent or knowledge of the complainant and also the amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- and Rs. 26,125/- was debited from the account of the complainant without consent of the complainant.
After receiving those policy certificates on 15/03/2021, the complainant immediately on 22/03/2021 requested the Branch Manager, PNB, Alipurduar Branch for cancelling the said policies but in vain. Thereafter again on 07/05/2021 and 24/05/2021 the complainant requested the Branch Manager seeking information regarding the process of cancellation of the policies after the letter of cancellation dated – 22/03/2021. The complainant several times requested to the Branch Manager of PNB over phone but no fruitful result came out.
Ultimately, on 19/08/2021 the complainant has filed this case in this Commission against the O.Ps and praying for Rs. 1,30,625/- which is debited from the account vide A/C No. 0238010521831 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for his harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 10,000/- for cost against the O.Ps.
On 12/11/2021, O.P No. 3 only appeared before this Commission through his Ld. Advocate along with Vakalatnama but did not turn up till to date but O.P Nos. 1 and 2 received the notice as per report of acknowledge, Postal Department but did not turn up despite of valid service of notice upon them. Hence, this case has been proceeded ex-parte against them.
Therefore, the complainant has filed the case and in support of the case he has filed some documents, evidence-on-affidavit and heard the ex-parte hearing from the side of the complainant. The documents comprising ten sheets dated – 18/08/2021. The documents are namely 1. PNB MetLife Guaranteed Future Plan Deed Xerox copy dated – 06/03/2021 and 2. Xerox copy of Letter to the PNB Branch Manager for cancellation of Policy No. 23695382 dated – 22/03/2021 and Reminder Letter to the PNB Branch Manager dated – 07/05/2021 and 24/05/2021 and 3. Transaction details of complainant’s bank passbook dated – 05/07/2021.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record.
In this contest, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any negligent or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all points are interlinked to each other as such all such points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point Nos. 1 and 2:- The complainant went to Punjab National Bank, Alipurduar Branch for fixing some amount, where the O.P No. 2 the employee of O.P Nos. 1 and 3 meet with the complainant and O.P No. 2 suggested the complainant not to fix the amount but to make PNB MetLife Insurance Policy which is more beneficial with 8.17% interest per month to be credited in the account of the complainant and the policy term is only five years. The complainant was convinced by them to sign one set of policy paper for PNB MetLife Guaranteed Future Plan in good faith but ultimately he received two different types of policies for which he did not applied for and there is no provision for 8.17% interest per month and the policy term is twelve years in place of five years, so accordingly to this provision of Section 2(7)(ii)of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the complainant is the consumer and he is entitled to file this case to getting relieve if the allegation is proved.
Further it is seen from this case record as well as the evidence of the complainant that the complainant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission, therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per Section 34(d) of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- These two points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity. Now in order to ascertain whether the O.Ps were negligent and is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and also is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps? It is evident that the complainant went to Punjab National Bank for fixing some amount where the O.P No. 2 (The Staff of the Bank) induced him not to fix the amount but to make PNB MetLife Insurance Policy with 8.17% interest per month for five year. The complainant convinced by O.Ps and signed one set of policy paper for PNB MetLife Guaranteed Future Plan in good faith but ultimately on 15/03/2021 he received two different types of policies for which he did not apply for and there is no provision for 8.17% interest per month and the policy term was of twelve years in place of five years. It is completely unfair trade practice caused by the O.Ps upon the complainant at the same time deficiency in service by deducting money from the bank account of the complainant although the complainant admits that he has put his signature in the bank form after satisfying the statement that the deposit was only for five years @ 8.17%.
It appears from the documents that is the two policies filed by the complainant which reveals that there is a provision of “Free Look Provision” and the complainant had the right to cancel the said two policies within 15 days from the date of the receive of the policy deed by way of writing to the authority concern. It also appears that the complainant has received the two policies on 15/03/2021 and he had the opportunity of “Free Look Provision” for 15 days i.e. up to 30/03/2021. It also appears that the complainant that avail this opportunity by filing a letter to O.P No. 1 on 22/03/2021 with a request for cancellation of policy No. 23695382 only and on the basis of that cancellation letter the amount of Rs. 26,125/- has been refunded by the O.P No. 3 to the account of the complainant on 26/08/2021 but the complainant, knowing it fully well that he had the opportunity to cancel the policy, did not cancel the policy No. 23693664. Why he did not cancel the said policy inspite of opportunity given by the O.P No. 3 for cancellation of the policy has not been explained here. It also appears from policy No. 23693664 that the premium paid only 5 years. So, the complainant is well aware that the company had given the opportunity to cancel the policy but he did not do so although he has cancelled one of the two policies within the time of 15 days and the company has returned the amount in the account of the complainant. It also appears from the documents that one fixed deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs for one year was done in favour of the complainant and the said fixed deposit has already been matured on 02/03/2022. It is fact that before filing of this case O.P No. 3 did not refund the policy amount to the complainant after cancellation of the policy No. 23695382. The case has been filed on 19/08/32021 and the refund was made on 26/08/2021. So, as per rule of “Free Look Provision” the O.P No. 3 did not refund the amount just after receiving the cancellation prayer. So, there is a deficiency in service from the part of the O.P No. 3 due to their laches.
Regarding the second policy No. 23693664 the complainant himself did not cancel the policy after knowing it full well regarding provision and terms and condition of the said policy. No documents regarding prayer for cancellation of the said policy is filed by the complainant but all on a sudden he realized that the premium amount should be returned to his account as he was not fully agreed with the terms and condition of the policy and when he realized the “Free Looks Period” of 15 days had already been expired then he filed a petition on 27/05/2021 to the O.P No. 1 for return of the said premium amount of Rs. 1,04,500/- to his account. We find that there is a laches from the part of the complainant for not cancelling the said policy within the time. The complainant is a doctor and literate person. That a part he has already availed the opportunity the cancellation of first policy No. 23695382 by writing letter to the O.P No. 1 within 15 days from the date of received the policy deed. The complainant can not take the plea that he was not aware of the provision to cancellation of that policy. So, the conduct of the complainant clearly indicates that at first he accepted the policy No. 23693664 for which he did not cancel the same and thereafter, he made up his mind to cancel the policy which the rule can not permit him. So, regarding the refund of the premium of policy No. 23693664 we find that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as because opportunity was given to him which he did not avail. So, there is the laches of part of him in respect of said policy.
It appears that in terms of cancellation letter of policy No. 23695382 the O.P No. 3 has returned premium amount of Rs. 26,125/- to the complainant account on 26/08/2021 i.e. after filing of the case. So, there is a deficiency in service from the part of the O.Ps and the complainant has suffered mentally for that delayed action taken by the O.Ps. Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from O.P No. 3 for delayed of taking action against the cancel policy.
Regarding unfair trade practice by O.Ps we found that the O.Ps have given the opportunity to the complainant for cancellation of policy No. 23693664 but the complainant did not avail the same which tantamount that he has accepted the above policy and its terms and condition for which he did not cancel the same although he has cancel the other policy within the time. The complainant did not come to Commission with a clean hand and he has suppressed some of the matters before this Commission for which he will not entitled to get any litigation costs.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte in part against the O.Ps. The complainant Sri. Subrata Das do get the award amounting to Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for his mental agony and sufferings. The O.P No. 3 (PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd.) is hereby directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the day of receiving this order i.d. legal action will be taken against him.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
