Punjab

Sangrur

CC/363/2016

Baldev Krishan Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Azadvinder Ashta

06 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  363

                                                Instituted on:    27.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       06.10.2016

 

Baldev Krishan Garg aged about 64 years son of Late Shri Roshan Lal, resident of H.No.96, Ward No.3, Near Gurudwara Nam Dev Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: Brigade Seshmahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Managing Director.

2.     Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Chief Manager.

3.     Kritika Rani, Relationship Manager, PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate.

For OP No.1&3         :       Shri Gurinderpal Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Baldev Krishan Garg, 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 complainant visited Op number 2 on 28.9.2015 for making a FDR of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the employees of OP number 2 told the complainant to obtain a single premium policy as the amount would be double after a period of five years. As such, on the assurance of the OP number 2 the complainant opted the single premium policy through the agent of OP number 3, who got signatures of the complainant on blank performa.  It is further averred that in the first week of April, 2016, the complainant received the policy documents and shocked to see that it was not a single premium policy, as such, the complainant wrote a letter dated 16.4.2016 to the OP number 1 and requested to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the OP number 1 flatly refused to accede to the request of the complainant. It is further averred that nothing happened despite visiting the complainant to the OPs so many times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1&3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, malicious, and has been filed with malafide intention, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has voluntarily applied for issuance of the policy, that the complainant did not opt to cancel the policy within the stipulated period of fifteen days. It is stated that the complainant purchased the policy after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, namely, Met Life Money Back and applied by filling form number 208993446 and paid an amount of Rs.1,99,999/- on years basis and signed all the required documents.  It has been further stated that the policy in question was issued on 28.9.2015 and thereafter the policy was despatched to the complainant on 28.9.2015 through Blue Dart Consignment number 40716524564 and the same was delivered on 19.10.2015, but the complainant did not apply for the cancellation of the policy within the period of fifteen days. It is stated further that the proper services have been provided to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is denied that on 28.9.2015 the complainant visited the office of OP number 2 for making the FDR of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further it is denied that the employee of OP number 2 told the complainant to obtain single premium policy and the amount would be double after five years.  It is stated that the OP number 2 has no concern with the OPs number 1 and 3. Apart from that, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OP number 2. Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of notice, Ex.C-4 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 copies of letters and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 3 has produced Ex.OP1&3/1 affidavit along with Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             Keeping in view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

 

7.             In the present complaint, the version of the complainant is that he visited OP number 2 for making FDR for Rs.2,00,000/- and then he was advised to obtain single premium policy of OP number 1 as his amount will become double in five years. Believing the words of OP number 2,  the complainant signed the papers for the single premium policy, but to his great surprise, he received the policy which was for a period of 10 years and then he wrote to the OP number 1 for the cancellation of the policy on 16.4.2016 and requested for the refund of his money.

 

8.             In written reply the version of the OPs number 1 and 3 is that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he would have cancelled the policy within 15 days free look period as has been mentioned in the policy. The OP number 2 has denied having advised the complainant to purchase the policy in question and has submitted that the “Op number 1 is an independent body and OP number 2 has no concern with it.”       

 

9.             It is admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the Ops and had approached the OP number 2 for deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the shape of FDR in his favour and then he was advised to invest in the policy of OP number 1 as the proposal form attached with the document Ex.OP1/1 bears the official stamp of OP number 2 at several places.

 

10.           Now, the question arises whether the complainant on receiving the policy for a term plan of ten years had requested the OP number 1 for the cancellation of the policy well in time or not and whether the complainant had visited the OP number 2 for making FDR of Rs.20,000/-.         

 

11.           The cancellation request of the complainant has been placed on record as per the document Ex.C-4 and the involvement of OP number 2 is made clear on the perusal of document Ex.OP1/1 as there are so many stamps of the OP number 2 on the proposal form of the complainant. All this show that no doubt the complainant went to OP number 2 for making FDR, but there he got allowed to invest the amount in the policy in question.

 

12.           Further the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has argued vehemently that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he could have cancelled the same within 15 days free look period. From the perusal of document Ex.C-4, we find that the complainant had requested for the cancellation of the policy in question and had sought the refund of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The OP number 1 had acknowledged the cancellation request of the complainant vide document Ex.C-5 and in this document, they have not mentioned that the request of the complainant is beyond the stipulated period of 15 days rather the OP number 1 had requested the complainant to submit copy of PAN card/passport/driving license, all this shows that the request of the complainant was well in time and even in the letter dated 8.6.2016 which is Ex.C-6 the OP number 1 has not taken such a plea. Had the request of the complainant been beyond the stipulated period of 15 days then the OP number 1 should have placed on record the receipt on which the policy was sent to the complainant. So, in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence, we are unable to admit that the complainant had requested for the cancellation of the policy beyond the stipulated period.  Whereas on the other hand, all this show that the complainant had made the cancellation request at the earliest and this is the reason that the Op number 1 had not rejected the claim in the document Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6.

 

13.           The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the judgments of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Commission, Punjab, delivered in First appeal Number 341 of 2013, decided on 7.1.2016 titled as Life Insurance Company Limited versus Manoj Kumar, wherein it has been held that “the policy was unit linked plan. No free look period option was exercised by the complainant in this case. The District Forum ordered the refund of the amount by deducting 10% amount therefrom under surrender charges on the basis of Regulation 2010. The counsel for the appellant argued before us that Regulation 2010 shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette and shall apply to all products of Unit Linked Life Insurance cleared by the authority thereafter. The notification of the Regulation 2010 was published in the year 2010 and the complainant purchased the policy on 23.10.2015, vide receipt Ex.C-2. It cannot be said that the policy was purchased prior to 2010 and hence above notification in the year 2010 can levy the discontinuance charges as per Regulation No.8. i.e. surrender charges of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and Surrender Charges Regulation 2010.  In the circumstances of the case; the order passed by the District Forum under challenge in this case cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous because there is no proof of courier receipt regarding service of insurance policy documents on the complainant in this case, as urged by the Op now appellant.   As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed”.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this citation is fully applicable in the present case as well.  As such, we further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited versus Preeti Prasad 2015(2) CLT 113(NC), wherein it has been held that since the insurance company could not place any document on record to substantiate that policy document was actually sent to the complainant and was received by him. There was no question of availing free look period of 15 days and the complainant cannot be bound by terms and conditions of the policy document.  In the present case also, the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the policy document was sent to the complainant and the same was actually delivered to the complainant.  As such, there was no question of availing free look period of 15 days in the present case.

 

14.           The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission pronounced in First Appeal No.1173 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Kaur versus Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, wherein in para number 5, it is mentioned that "perusal of disputed policy reveals that it was named as Life Long Unit Linked Fund and sum insured was Rs.14,00,000/- and regular annual premium amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. It also covered accidental benefits of Rs.14,00,000/-. Learned State Commission observed that complaint was not maintainable in the light of judgment of this Commission in III (2013) CPJ 203(NC) Ram Lal Aggarwalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, whereas, perusal of aforesaid judgment reveal that in the aforesaid case Unit Gain Super Diamond Policy was taken with Rs.2,00,000/- annual premium for 24 years. Policy in the aforesaid case was for investment purposes whereas, disputed policy is for covering life as well as accidental benefit and this policy cannot be equated with policy in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla (Supra). Learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable as policy was for  investment in speculative business. Learned counsel for the petition has placed reliance on judgment of this commission in 2012 Law Suit (CO) 606- Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Addanki Satyanarayana in which claim for unit linked policy with life insurance was held maintainable before Consumer Fora, though, in that policy maturity value was Rs.2,51,73,756/- and death benefit was only Rs.5,02,000/- whereas in the case in hand, sum assured was Rs.14,00,000/- along with accidental benefits of same amount. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint filed by the complainant was maintainable before learned State Commission and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and appeal is to be allowed.

15.           So, keeping in view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the OP number 1 not only deficient in service, but also indulged in unfair trade practice and as such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP number 1  to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.04.2016 till realisation. The OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and litigation expenses.

16.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 6, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member