This is a complaint made by (1) Mr. Anupam Pal, son of Ranjit Pal, (2) Mousumi Pal, wife of Mr. Anupam Pal and (3) Debanjali Pal, daughter of Mr. Anupam Pal, all residing at 35B, Middle Road, Jadavpur, P.S.-Garfa, Kolkata-700 075 against (i) PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at 1st floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex of VEER Sawarkar, Flyover, Goregoan, West Mumbai-700 062, OP No.1, (ii) PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd., having its branch office at 1st floor, Kashiniket Building, 190/C, Satin Sen Sarani, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700 054, OP No.2, (iii) Mr. Joydeep Nandi, OP No.3 and (iv) Oishi Mukherjee, OP No.4, both are the representatives of PNB Met life, praying for direction upon the OPs to cancel the policies No.(a) 2155651 dt.29.4.2015 and (b) 21551033 dt.30.4.2015 and the money to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainants are Indian Citizen and living within the jurisdiction of this Forum. OP No.1 is the registered office of PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd., OP No.2 is the branch office of OP No.1 and OP No.3 & 4 are the representatives of OP No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 & 4, being representatives, in the month of February/March, 2015 jointly approached the Complainant to invest in the Company of OP No.1 & 2 and guaranteed monthly regular income on expiry of one year. OP No.3 & 4 further explained that the policy be single premium one time premium and it covers risk of 10 years. So, Complainant purchased the policy.
Thereafter, Complainant learnt that OP No.3 & 4 being the representatives of OP No.1 & 2, misrepresented the Complainants and received the money for issuing the insurance policy. After knowing that the policy is of annual premium, Complainants contacted the OP No.3 & 4 and they agreed to change the policy, over phone.
Complainant further alleged that OP No.3 & 4 misled them and they were cheated. On 17.12.2015, Complainants wrote a letter to Manager, PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to return the money back at the earliest. But, they did not get any relief. So, Complainants filed this complaint.
OP No.1 & 2 filed written version and denied the allegation of the Complainants. They have stated that the complaint as false, malicious and has been filed with mala fide intention. Further, they have alleged that the complaint does not disclose the consumer dispute. They have also alleged that Complainants had a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents to cancel it which they did not do, as such, they are not entitled to refund of the money.
Further, they have alleged that the proposal form was filled up by Complainants and they applied for the policy. So, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.3 & 4 did not contest the case by filing written version and so the case proceeded against OP No.3 & 4 ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainants filed affidavit-in-chief where they have reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against that OP No.1 & 2 filed questionnaire. Thereafter, Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.1 & 2 filed evidence against which Complainant filed questionnaire. But, OP No.1 & 2 did not file any affidavit-in-reply and hence argument was heard on behalf of the Complainant. But, OPs did not appear and participated in the argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
First relief of the Complainant is for an order for cancellation of policies No.21555651 dt.29.4.2015 and No.21551033 dt.30.4.2015 and also refund of Rs.5,00,000/-.
In this regard, it appears that Complainant has filed copies of the bank statements showing that he paid money.
Further, it appears that the policy document was issued on 31.3.2015 and it was an annual premium policy for 10 years. Policy No.21551033 is in the name of Mousumi Pal of which cancellation has been prayed. Similarly, No.21555651 is in the name of Mr. Anupam Pal, cancellation of which sought for.
Further, it appears that notice which Complainant issued to the Operation Manager, PNB Met Life Insurance Co. is dated 17.12.2015 that means after a lapse of about nine months. The notice of being aggrieved by the Complainant was issued which was replied by the Company stating that the policy was issued as per the proposal form which was filled up by the Complainants and it further states that customer has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents to refund as per the terms & conditions of the policy. If the customer is not satisfied he can approach the grievance redressal officer at the pnbmetlife.com.in. This letter is dated 29.12.2015 that means after a lapse of 17 days PNB Met Life replied to the letter. Thereafter Complainants issued another letter on 6.2.2016 praying for refunding the money, in default they will be taking appropriate legal action.
Now, the question arises as to whether Insurance Co is empowered to refund the money as per the desire of the Complainants.
On perusal of the Xerox copy of the proposal form which has been filed on behalf of the Complainant, it is clear that the policies have been signed by the policy holders. There is no challenge that they did not sign it.
Further, only allegation is that the representatives cheated the Complainants by falsely inducing them.
In our view, all the Complainants appear not only literate but educated as it can be inferred by any prudent man.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that Complainants cannot take th plea that Insurance Co. cheated them. Insurance Companies are meant for providing relief to the citizens and to take risk which are regulated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDA) and at present the terms and conditions are not making of the Company, but are supervised and guided by the IRDA.
As such, we do not find from the evidences and the materials in the record that OPs representatives committed any misrepresentation or fraud and so the prayer of the Complainants does not appear to be justified.
Hence,
ordered
CC/97/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.
