BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.419 of 2014

Date of Instt. 26.11.2014

Date of Decision :23.04.2015

Sarbjeet Kaur aged about 50 years wife of Baldev Singh R/o Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Malsian Road, Nakodar, District Jalandahr.

..........Complainant

Versus

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, Unit No.T.F-3, Third Floor, Eminent Mall Complex, Guru Nank Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gagandeep Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Lalit Kakkar Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is illiterate lady. The complainant can not read or write English. The complainant only can write her name in Punjabi. The husband of the complainant is 70% disabled. The opposite party approached the complainant and induced the complainant to purchase the policy. The complainant being illiterate purchased a policy bearing No.00630257 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The opposite party asked the complainant to pay the policy amount in three installments. At the time of purchase of the policy the time period of the policy was not disclosed to the complainant. The complainant paid three installments for the policy amount as stipulated by the opposite party. To the utmost surprise of the complainant despite paying the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, the policy period was not disclosed to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant alongwith his husband by hiring the taxi went from their residence to the office of the opposite party in Jalandhar to know about the period of the policy many times but the opposite party put off the complainant and his husband with one pretext or other. At repeated request of the complainant and her husband, the opposite party disclosed to the complainant that policy is for the period of 15 years. To know about this, the complainant was astonished as the complainant never demanded policy for 15 years. At this, the complainant and her husband protested and asked for the cancellation of the policy to which the opposite party said that on the cancellation of the policy after 3 years the complainant will get half of the amount and on cancellation of the policy after 6 years the complainant will get the full amount and benefits of the policy. After the completion of 6 years of the policy period, on 11.9.2014, the complainant surrendered the policy to opposite party and asked for the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the benefits under the policy. To utter surprise of the complainant, despite surrendering the policy the opposite party asked to the complainant to furnish the indemnity bond as the complainant has lost the policy. At this the complainant objected, the opposite party told to the complainant that the opposite party has lost the policy. The complainant will be given the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the benefits under policy only if the complainant will furnish the indemnity bond to the effect that the complainant has lost the policy. The opposite has done fraud with the complainant. Prior to filing the present complaint, the complainant alongwith her husband approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to release the policy amount of Rs.1.50.000/- and the benefits under policy bearing No.00630257, but the opposite party refused to release the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay her the policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the benefits under the policy in question alongwith interest. She has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written statement pleading that the opposite party received the duly filled up and signed proposal form alongwith the initial premium amount from the complainant, wherein the complainant expressed her willingness to obtain the above mentioned policy. The complainant, after completely understanding the terms and conditions of their product "Met Easy" had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up proposal form bearing No.DAS301149852. The complainant offered to pay a modal premium Rs.50,000/- annual for a period of 15 years, towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.3,75,000/-. The complainant has also signed up Benefit Illustration Form for the above mentioned policy and therefore she was well aware of all the terms and conditions pertaining to the policy. Upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form alongwith the initial premium of Rs.50,000/- against the application, the opposite party evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.00630257 on 20.8.2008 to the complainant. Further the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart courier vide consignment No.40175631311 which were duly delivered. It is submitted that on 11.9.2014, the opposite party received a request from complainant to surrender the policy and same was rejected as there was a policy owner's name mismatch in the provided bank proof and their records. The same was informed to the complainant vide letter dated 16.9.2014. It is further submitted that complainant is manipulating facts and on the basis of which trying to put liability on the opposite party. It is further submitted that complainant shall not be allowed to take undue advantage by portraying herself as a suffer before this Forum. It is also submitted that the opposite party has acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract. The opposite party wants to submit that the complainant is liable only for the surrender value, if any and no other amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. According to the own version of the complainant, she purchased the policy in question from opposite party and paid three installments of the premium amount. The grievance of the complainant is that she was not disclosed the policy term and ultimately on repeated request by her and her husband, the opposite party disclosed to her that policy is for a period of 15 years. Further according to complainant, after completion of 6 years of policy period on 11.9.2014 she surrendered the policy and asked for policy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and benefit under the policy but opposite party demanded indemnity bond as the policy has been lost. Ex.OP1 is proposal form. It is duly signed by the complainant as well as declarant. Where any person sings any document, the presumption is that he or she signed the same after fully understanding its contents. In M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd & Anr. Versus M/s. Aggarwal Steel 2010 (1) SC 33, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise, no signature on a document can ever be accepted."

7. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant to prove that her signatures on the proposal form were obtained by practicing any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence. The policy was obtained by the complainant in the year 2008 and whereas she has filed the present complaint in November 2014 i.e after 6 years. In case the policy term was not known to the complainant then she would not have remain silent for all these years. It is not shown, if she ever wrote any letter or served any notice upon the opposite party asking for the term of the policy in question. So this version of the complainant can not be accepted. It is in the affidavit Ex.OPW1/A of M.Udaiyakumar Jain, Manager Legal of opposite party that the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart courtier vide consignment No.40175631311 which was duly delivered. In her complaint, the complainant has not specifically pleaded that she did not receive the policy documents. Her version is that period of the policy was not disclosed to her. So it means that policy documents were received by her. Moreover, the version of the complainant is that opposite party demanded the indemnity bond as the policy has been lost, so it means that policy was received by her. So from the policy, the complainant must have become aware of the policy period. According to own version of the complainant, she has surrendered the policy on 11.9.2014. So after surrendered of the policy, the complainant is only entitled to surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions of the policy are attached with the proposal form Ex.OP1. As per terms and conditions, she is not entitled to premiums amount paid by her but only to the surrender value.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party insurance company is directed to give surrender value of the policy in question to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. In case, the surrender value is not paid to the complainant within aforesaid period of one month then the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum after expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

23.04.2015 Member Member President