DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 179/2021

Date of Institution: 24.03.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 10.04.2024

Judgment Passed on: 10.04.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this Judgment Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant claiming only compensation from the OP w.r.t. the mis-selling the policies to the complainant’s, who are husband & wife.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant approached the OP as he wanted certain investments to be made in fixed deposit but the OP instead of keeping amount of the complainant in fixed deposit has allured him and has issued 4 policies to the complainant i. e. para-6….. Met Smart Platinum New Policy No. 22877763, Premium Paid Rs.4,99,999/- dated 13.04.2019, PNB Metlilfe Super Saver Plan, Policy No. 23074748, Premium Paid Rs.4,98,988/- dated 26.10.2019, Met Smart Platinum New Policy No. 23022982, Premium Paid Rs.4,99,999/- dated 09.09.2019 & Met Smart Platinum New Policy No. 23023191, Premium Paid Rs.4,99,999/- dated 09.09.2019 and it was informed to the complainant that he had to make payment only one time investment policy, which would be matured after particular period but the complainant’s received notice from the OP stating that he had to make payment for another year and when the complainants approached the OP bank w.r.t. mis-selling of three policies to them as complainant who is illiterate and had no source of income except rental income and it was also informed to the OP that policy has been sold by mis-representation given by the sales official of the OP, but they were not heard and as such they made a complaint to the police w.r.t. fraud and cheating played upon them and also filed a complaint before the Insurance Ombudsman constituted under the Ombudsman Rules 2017 and the Ld. Ombudsman after hearing the matter passed an award in favour of complainant and held as follows;-

- Complaint is allowed and insurer is directed to cancel such policy and refund the amount within 30 days.  

3. It is further submitted that the complainant have suffered great loss on account of such mis-selling of the policies and have lost interest of more than 16 months for 3 policies and 20 months for 1 policy which amounts to unfair trade practice and has deprived the complainant from the returns which could have been earned by the complainant’s and as such he has filed the present complaint claiming the interest of Rs.3,34,933/-, mental agony and undue harassment Rs.65,067/- & Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and total amount they are claiming is Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP.
4. It is matter of record that amount of the policy has already been returned to the complainant with interest.
5. The OP has filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the complainant had voluntarily approached the OP with a view to make investment in insurance policies of the OP, he was informed about the various policies plan out of which they had chosen the above said policies which were issued to them after explaining all these facts but all these facts are at present of no consequences as amount have already been refunded to the complainant in terms of the order of Ld. Ombudsman.  Therefore as these objections are not much worth explaining which are running in about 10 pages. However it is further submitted there is no deficiency on the part of OP & present complaint is not maintainable as same is bad for mis-representation & for want of cause of action & then complaint is not maintainable before this Consumer Commission. It is further stated that complainant have not come to Commission with clean hands and the same is vexatious the complainant has not filed any appeal against award passed by Ld. Ombudsman, before the RBI’s, Deputy Governor & has filed the complaint case which is evident & proves that present complaint has been filed for sole motive to extort money from the OP and all other facts are denied word by word and it is ultimately prayed that present complaint of the complainant be dismissed with exemplary cost.
6. Complainant has filed rejoinder thereby denying the contents of the written statement. Both the complaints have filed their respective evidence whereas OP has filed evidence of Sh. Devendra Verma, Manager-Legal, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,. Both parties have filed their written arguments and Commission has heard the arguments at length.
7. The Commission has not adverted much to the facts of the present case as it is ultimately conceded by Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for OP that the present complaint case is only w.r.t. seeking compensation from the OP to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of mis-selling the policies and it is also admitted fact that the amount of the policy has already been returned to the complainant with interest. The complainant has relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Ombudsman and also the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC Amarjit Kaur Vs Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. And Ors where in similar facts & circumstances w.r.t. mis-selling the policies, the Hon’ble NCDRC ordered for the refund of the premium amount after deducting 10% of the premium to the complainant. The Commission is of the opinion that this judgment as relied upon by the complainant is not helping then at all as this order is in conformity with the order passed by Ld. Ombudsman where from the complainant has already received the amount back with interest.
8. The Counsel for OP on the other hand has relied upon the judgment title Synco Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur And Ors by Hon’ble Supreme Court being Civil No. 6453/2000 whereas it was held that the mere case w.r.t. the some compensation is not maintainable before the Consumer Court and for that complainant has to go appropriate the Civil Court. The effective part of this judgment read as under and judgment reads as under;-
9. Given the nature of the claim in the complaint and the prayer for damages in the sum of Rupees fifteen crores and for an additional sum of Rupees sixty lakhs for covering the cost of travelling and other expenses incurred by the appellant, is obvious that very detailed evidence would have to be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and expenses. It is, therefore, in any event not an appropriate case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion. The National Commission was right in giving to the appellant liberty to move the Civil Court. This is on appropriate claim for a Civil Court to decide and, obviously, was not filed before a Civil Court to start with because, before the Consumer Forum, and figure in damages can be claimed without having to pay court fees. This, in that sense, is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Forum and it is argued that the complainant has mis-used the platform of this Commission by claiming mere compensation once the amount of policy has already been returned to him. Therefore this Commission is of the opinion that once the complainant has already received the amount of the policies the present case is for mere compensation & the same is not maintainable before this Commission and complaint case of the complainant is dismissed.

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on 10.04.2024.

 File be consigned to Record Room.