Punjab

Sangrur

CC/527/2017

Balkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Dhindsa

13 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.    527

                                                Instituted on:      06.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.03.2018

 

Balkar Singh son of Ram Singh, resident of Village Manka Patti, VPO Bhutal Kalan, Tehsil Lehra, Sangrur Punjab.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited Registered Office: Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27 M G Road, Bangalore-560001 Karnataka through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.             PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, 4^th Floor, Kunal Towers, No-88, The Mall Road, Opp. AXIS Bank, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

3.             PNB Bank Old Grain Market, Sunam through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Adv.

For OPs No.1&2        :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.3              :       Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balkar Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the real uncle of the complainant Shri Birbal Singh got services of the Ops by getting an insurance policy namely Metlife Family Income Protector Plan vide policy number 21598505 on 14.6.2015 through OP number 3 at Sunam by paying the requisite premium of Rs.20050/- for Rs.14,20,000/- for the period of 10 years i.e. the policy commenced on 14.6.2015, which was valid upto 14.6.2025.  Further case of the complainant is that the insured nominated the father of the complainant Shri Ram Singh as nominee and subsequently Shri Balkar Singh complainant was nominated as nominee under the policy by the insured Birbal Singh.  Further case of the complainant is that the said insured Birbal Singh died on 16.1.2017 during the subsistence of the insurance policy and after his death the complainant submitted all the documents to the OPs for payment of the insurance claim amount,  but the OP number 2 did not pay the claim rather demanded legal heir/succession certificate and KYC verification form, the same were also submitted to the OPs, but the claim was not paid by the OPs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.14,20,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured till realisation further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of the letters dated 11.7.2017 and reminders dated 17.10.2017, as such it is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. On merits, it is admitted that the insured Birbal Singh had got the insurance policy in question for Rs.14,20,000/- with commencement of risk date as 14.06.2015. It is further admitted that the Ops received the intimation about the death of the deceased, but the Ops requested the complainant to provide the legal heir/succession certificate and to verify the KYC by visiting any of the nearest branch of the OPs, but the complainant failed to comply with the said letters. As such, it is stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, as such has sought for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. 

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP/1&2/1 affidavit along with Annexure OP-1 to OP-3 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. 

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the uncle of the complainant, namely, Birbal Singh got insured under term plan, namely, Metlife Family Income Protector Plus vide policy number 21598505 on 14.06.2015 for Rs.14,20,000/-, as is evident from the premium paid certificate, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-6 and PNB Metlife Family Plus Plan Ex.C-5. It is not in dispute that Birbal Singh died on 8.2.2017 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, as is evident from the copy of death certificate of Balbir Singh, which is on record as Ex.C-8. We have also perused the copy of letter dated 11.7.2017 sent to the complainant and a bare perusal of it shows that the complainant Balkar Singh (grandson) is the nominee under the policy in question.  Since the Ops are demanding again and again the copy of legal heir/succession certificate and copy of KYC verification, but we failed to understand why the Ops are demanding the succession certificate/legal heir certificate from the complainant, when he is the nominee under the policy as mentioned above.  In the column 5 of Annexure OP-1, it is clearly mentioned in the column of nominee details the name of the complainant Balkar Singh is clearly mentioned.  The same is the position of the document policy details, wherein it is clearly mentioned that Balkar Singh is the nominee under the policy.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant Balkar Singh is entitled to get the claim amount under the policy being the nominee.  The same view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission in Smt. Paramjit Kaur and others versus Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 2005(2) CPC 397, wherein it is clearly mentioned that only the nominee is entitled to get the insurance claim and not the legal heirs. 

 

7.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

8.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.14,20,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 06.10.2017 till realisation.  We further order the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        March 13, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member