DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 353/2016

No. DC/ Central/

vs.

Coram:       Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                    Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

                   Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

ORDER

Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

1. Smt. Veena Malhotra filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd. pleading therein that

OP (insurance company) paid less cancellation amount under freelook period of policy no. 21498425 and 21498272. The complainant submits that under policy no. 21498425 and 21498272, she had paid Rs.47,500/- each as first premium and she had applied for freelook cancellation and she received Rs.39,725/- and Rs. 38,089/- against Rs.47500/- each policy. She has alleged that as per IRDAI rules if policy is surrendered in freelook period whole premium should be refunded but the company paid after deduction out of the premium paid. After approaching the insurance company she further approached the Ombudsman vide order dated 29.03.2016 of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. Thereafter the complainant has approached this Commission for refund of her balance amount under both the policies. On these facts complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/- the cost of filing complaint etc., and refund further Rs.5,122/- and Rs. 6,614/- being investment charges total amounting to Rs.11,736/-. Complainant has further prayed that the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the damages for in inconvenience caused by it.

2. OP appeared and filed its written statement dated 15.03.2016 stating therein that subject policies were issued on the basis of signed proposal forms on 16.02.2015 and had a term of 38 years. Submitted it application vide application no.191407747 along with a cheque of Rs.47,500/- as a premium towards MET Smart Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan. Both the policies were dispatched and delivered on 20.02.2015 and 21.02.2015. The complainant had approached OP on 10.03.2015 requesting cancellation under freelook period but has withdrawn the request on 25.03.2015. On 27.10.2015, the complainant again approached for freelook cancellation of policy no.21498425 and [as an exception on 20.11.2015 amount of rate Rs. 39,725/- was refunded] and similarly for policy no.21498272 the complainant made the freelook cancellation request on 25.01.2016 and on 06.02.2015 amount of Rs.38,089/- was refunded.
3. The terms of the Met Smart Unit Link Life Insurance Plan stipulates at clause 7.1 as follows…

“Free Look Period: you may cancel the policy by giving us a signed written notice within 15 days of receiving the policy stating the reason for your objection and we will pay an amount equal to non-allocated premiums plus charges levied through cancellation of Units plus the fund value at the date of cancellation subject to deduction of expenses towards medical examination, stamp duty and proportionate risk premium for the period cover.”

The OP states that the complainant on 25.01.2016 submitted

a freelook cancellation request form wherein she has stated that the original policy document was received by her on 19.01.2016. The OP states that it processed the cancellation of the policy as requested by the complainant in accordance with the terms of the policy and credited to the complainant’s account through NEFT with Rs.38,089/- on 08.02.2016 vide transaction reference- CITIN16613619666. After getting the freelook cancellation amount of both the policies complainant wrote letters dated.12.02.2016, 17.02.2016, 18.02.2016 seeking details of basis of deduction. The OP further stated that the deduction from the premium reasonable is in according with the terms and conditions of Policy and in conformity with IRAI regulation.

4. OP has further prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Surender Malhotra husband 0f the complainant Mrs. Veena Malhotra duly authorized by the complainant. Authority letter submitted along with complaint EW1/1, two policies document submitted as EW1/2&1/3, the complainant surrendered the policy no.21498425 on 27.10.2015 as exhibit EW1/4, the Op refunded Rs.39,725.45/- to the complaint on 26.11.2015 as exhibit EW1/5, the complainant wrote letter for reason of which are deduction exhibit EW1/6 to EW1/16. The OP refused to give details of deduction exhibit as EW1/17. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on 18.03.2016 exhibit as EW1/18. The complainant also submitted in a similar matter involving and identical policy taken by the husband of the complainant policy bearing no. 21498522 on 16.02.2015 exhibit as EW1/19.
5. It is also on record the details submitted by the complainant. He took policy no. 2149825 which was received by him on 16.10.2015 and he surrendered the same on 27.10.2015 within free look period. Likewise, Policy No. 21498272 received on 19.01.2016 was also surrendered on 25.01.2016 within free look period.
6. On other hand Sh. Rajiv Sharma S/o Sh. Lekh Ram Sharma tendered in evidence affidavit from legal department of PNB Met Life Insurance Company testifying all the facts has stated in the statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submission.

7. We have gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by both the parties and have also heard oral submission of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

8. We have thus, come to the conclusion that this is a MET Smart Unit Linked Life Insurance Plan. The complainant had even deposited one premium of Rs.47,500/- each policy. The complainant availed the free look period of the policy and got cancelled her policy in stipulated period. The OP deducted the policy amount although the complainant has placed on record the previous order of the Ombudsman wherein the deduction of the amount in free look period not admissible. On the basis of said order we have no way to dismiss the said complaint.
9. Keeping in view of the discussion and circumstances stated above the deduction by OP was not justified. OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,122/- & Rs. 6,641/- to the complainant which was deducted at the time of refund. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges.

10. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 6^th October of 2022.