Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/940/2022

HARMESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

13 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/940/2022
Date of Institution	:	25/11/2022
Date of Decision	:	13/12/2024

 

1. Harmesh Kumar S/O Sh.Sohan Singh and
2. Mrs Ramandeep W/o Harmesh Kumar S/o Sh.Sohan Singh Both R/o #160 Deep Nagar Jalandhar cantt., Jalandhar, Punjab.

......Complainants

Vs

 

1. PNB Housing Finance Limited through its Managing Director SCO 323-324 First Floor, Sector 35-B Chandigarh 160008.
2. Managing Director, PNB Housing Finance Limited SCO 323-324 First Floor, Sector 35-B Chandigarh 160008.
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd through its Managing Director

     Interface Building No.16,601/602, 6th Floor New link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai, India-400064.

4. Managing Director, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd

     Interface Building No.16,601/602, 6th Floor New link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai, India-400064.

......Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Navneet Jindal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Tejsavi Sheokand, Adv. proxy for Sh.Sumit Puri, Adv. for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	Sh.Sandeep Suri and Sh.Kartik, Advocates for OP No.3 & 4.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainants approached OP 1 for housing loan for the flat they intended to purchase in Drishti Homes 2, Village Santemajra, Kharar, Mohali, Punjab and the same was sanctioned vide letter dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure C-1). In addition, the complainants were asked to take insurance to secure the said loan. The agent of OP-1 who was pursuing loan application told the complainants to get the insurance done to secure the loan. They told the complainants that this insurance is must for taking home loan. However, it was clear understanding between the complainant and OP 1 that the loan will be term plan to secure the loan against any event which may incapacitate insured to pay loan. Thereafter complainants pursued the matter with the OP-1 for sharing the Insurance policy document to examine the same. The OP-1 paid no heed to the request and kept the matter lingering on. In the mean time covid lockdown happened and the OP-1 further got an excuse to delay it. The complainants got fedup with the verbal assurances and sent an email on 5.8.2020. Then again the OP-1 failed to share the policy documents (Annexure C-2). It is important to mention here that OP-I shared three policy certificates on 11.09.2020 but the same are not policy document to enable my clients to take an informed decision on the said Insurance policy. Prima facie the policies seems to be imposed on the clients are not as per the requirements given to OP-1, however, the same can be seen only when the policy document will be received. The complainants are under the right to either return the same due to non satisfaction 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents (Annexure C-3). As per the IRDAI guidelines for the agents, OP-2 being the Insurer is under the duty to send the detailed policy to the Insured mentioning the complete details, terms and conditions, the proposal forms filled and suggesting the right to return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document. The OP-2 did not share any such document till date on the address mentioned with the bank as well as given in the insurance proposal form. Thus they miserably failed to do their duty imposed upon them by law. After going through the terms and conditions of the policies the complainants became shocked that the policies issued were not upto the mark and not as per instructions. The purpose of the policy was to secure the loan which was for period of 20 years and none of the policy secures the loan which ideally should be the case. The policy bearing policy No.4111/PNB/189734103/00/000 is issued to loan account No.HOU/CHD/1119/757555. This policy gives only limited coverage on accident and that too for a short period of 3 years whereas the loan is for longer period are useless. It is clear that the said policy is issued to satisfy their own work unrelated to the needs of the loan or the complainants. Even a reasonable prudent man will think about the purpose of policy and then take a policy to serve the purpose. All the three policies are not serving any purpose and are not as per understanding accorded at that time but first policy No.4118/PNBST/189734104/00/000 is for long period and secures the house against fire so the complainants thought of keeping it to secure the loan but other two policies, as mentioned above, are for 3 years and five years that too for accident coverage and limited coverage will never be taken by any prudent man. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 11.11.2020 but despite that no policy document has been shared till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that as per Disbursement Request Form, duly signed and submitted by complainant, the Loan Disbursal was requested by the complainant as Rs.20,50,000/- towards seller for purchase of property and Rs.58,860/- as premium towards Insurance Company i.e. OPs No.3 and 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering OPs had made the Loan disbursement at the request of complainant and as per scheme forwarded by complainant vide Disbursement Request Form submitted with Loan Disbursement Letter dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure R-3). The insurance was availed by the complainant from the OPs No.3 and 4 at his own accord and the answering OPs only funded the premium amount at the request and consent of the complainant, which was added in the loan amount disbursed to the complainant. It is further stated that the prayer in the said complaint is against the OP No.3 and OP No.4 whereby the complainant is seeking cancellation of the insurance policy. It is humbly submitted that the cancellation of the insurance policies sought by the complainant can only be done by the OP No.3 and 4 as they are the ones who have a privity of contract with the complainant. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.     OP No.3 & 4 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that in the case of the complainant that the said policy certificates were in the knowledge and custody of the complainant. Yet the complainant did not raise any dispute in respect of the same nor asked for any cancellation of the policy within the free look period. Rather reason now being given for seeking cancellation, was well within the knowledge of the complainant not only at the time of the delivery of the policy but also at the time of the filing of the first complaint. In case the complainant was interested in extension of the policy for such time period as he deemed fit, he was free to have applied for the same with the opposite party and on the payment of the premium get the same coverage for the time period as he would have required. Even otherwise the complainant after having taken the benefit of the policies for nearly 2 years decided to file the complaint before the consumer forum. It is further stated that the complainant is still in a position to take the coverage for a period of 20 years by paying the additional premium. The respective period of coverage in these policies as 3 years and 5 years is clearly mentioned in risk assumption letter and policy certificate, which placed of record in the first complaint by complainant himself. It is submitted that the free look period  was available to the complainant from the date of delivery of the policies as was received by him first in January 2020. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP No.3 & 4 had not sent the detailed policy to the insured complainants mentioning complete details, terms & conditions, due to which he could not take an informed decision to return the same due to non-satisfaction within 15 days from the receipt of policy documents.
8.     We have perused Annexure C-3 (colly) which contains the copies of policy certificates shared by OP No.1. On perusal of para 7 & 8 of complaint, it is observed that the complainant was supplied with these detailed policy documents only on 18.4.2022. We are of the view that the free look period starts from the first date i.e., 18.4.2022, on which the detailed policy documents were supplied to complainants.
9.     As per IRDAI guidelines for the agents OP No.2 being the insurer is under the duty to send the detailed policy to the insured mentioning complete details, terms & conditions, which the OPs did only on 18.4.2022 after a long delay from the issue of insurance policy. By not doing so, the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainants.
10.     In view of the above, the complaint is partly allowed and the right to return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of detailed policy document is upheld and the OP No.3 & 4 are directed to cancel the policy No.4111/PNB/189734103/00/000 and 4005/M/PNB-GPA/189734105/00/000.
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP No.3 & 4 are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. to refund an amount of ₹38074/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OP No.3 & 4 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
13.     The consumer complaint qua OP No.1 & 2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

13/12/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member