Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1037/2014

PRAVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB MET LIFE INS - Opp.Party(s)

01 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO  1037/14

 

Sh. Praveen Kumar Maheshwari

S/o Late Sh. K.K. Maheshwari

R/so 35, Govind Khand,

Vishwakarma Nagar,

Delhi 110095

…Complainant

Vs.

PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Formally known as

Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

3^rd Floor, Plot No. 23, Armesh Business Centre-II,

Comminity Centre – 5, Karkardooma Colony,

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi- 110092

Also at

Registered Office:

No.5, Brigade Sheshmahal Vani Vilas Road,

Basavanagudi, Banglore

…Opposite party

 

Date of Institution: 14.11.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 01.04.2019

Judgement Pronounced on: 02.04.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Judgement

The present complaint pertains to allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against OP, PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd, by the complainant, Sh. Praveen Kumar Maheshwari.

Complainant, a lawyer by profession was approached by one Mr. Raj, agent of OP for sale of policy issued by OP. Complainant was told that the locking period was only 3 yrs for which the complainant had to pay premium. He was assured that after 5 years the complainant will get the return as per NAV as the policy was unit linked. Further, the complainant was assured that life cover for            Rs. 5,00,000/- would be available after maturity for next 10 years  from the date of payment of first premium. A cheque was issued in September, 2008 and photocopy of the form was provided to complainant on request. It has been stated that despite several oral and written requests the policy document was not provided either by OP or by the agent. The complainant paid 3 premiums of Rs. 15,000/- each by cheque, which were cleared on 26.09.2008, 19.11.2009 and 12.11.2010. Complainant has stated that after paying 3 premiums, he waited for the maturity amount as assured by the agent of OP. No satisfactory response was given to the complaints/ requests of the complainant and in the meantime Met Life Insurance Ltd. was converted into PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd in September, 2012, who also declined to give the maturity amount. It has been further stated by the complainant that a complaint before IRDA was filed, upon which the complainant was offered settlement. One representative of OP, namely, Mr. Amit Malhotra, informed that as the policy had lapsed, the complainant was required to invest in any of the companies such as Reliance Life Insurance, HDFC Life and Egon Religare around Rs. 40,000/- . The complainant was informed that the process would take 60 to 90 days to initiate payment of Rs. 1,06,986.04 against the policy in dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint with prayer for directions to OP to provide policy document and release the maturity amount i.e. 1,06,986.04, compensation toward harassment mental agony, pain and financial loss as Rs. 2,50,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 50,000/-,

The complainant has annexed proposal form dated 17.09.2008 as Annexure A, letter dated 16.11.2009 as Annexure B, statement of account  as Annexure C, letter dated 25.11.2013 as Annexure D and undated letter as Annexure E, complaint with IRDA as Annexure F with the complaint.       

Written Statement was filed by OP upon service of the notice, where they have taken several objections in their defence. They have stated that the complaint being malicious and malafide deserved dismissal under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant had failed to exercise his option of returning the policy within the free look period. It was submitted that the policy was issued on 29.09.2008 and the same was delivered on 07.10.2008 through Bluedart Courier vide POD No. 40185092113 and the complainant continued to pay renewal premiums. It was further submitted that the complainant had signed the proposal form bearing No. 122914490 voluntarily and was aware of the terms and conditions, thereafter, policy bearing No. 00665611 was issued for a premium of Rs. 15,000/- to be paid annually for a period of 29 years against the sum assured of Rs. 5,10,000/-. The policy of the complainant had lapsed as the complainant had failed to pay the premium for the due date of 29.09.2011. Rest of the contents have been denied.

Proposal form dated 17.09.2008, synopsis of the complainant’s case, declaration for Unit Linked Products alongwith benefit illustration, terms and conditions have been filed by the OP.

Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where he has reiterated the contents of the compliant and has got exhibited the photocopy of proposal form filled by agent and signed by him as Ex.CW1/1, copy of the bank statement as Ex.CW1/2, copy of letter as Ex.CW1/3, copy of complaint before IRDA as Ex. CW1/4 and copy of token as Ex. CW1/5.

OP has got examined Mr. Motty John, General Manager, Legal, in support of their submissions made in the WS. He has relied upon copy of proposal form bearing No. 122914490 dated 17.09.2008 alongwith terms and conditions as       Ex. OP1 (Colly.).

We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has alleged that the policy document was not delivered to him and in support of his averment he has placed on record letter dated 16.11.2009 wherein he has stated that he has not received the policy documents. On the other hand, OP though they have mentioned in their WS but have not placed on record any proof of delivery in support of their defence.

 Further, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that no notice for the payment of premium was given by OP and as far as benefit illustration filed by OP are concerned, only the last page has been signed by the complainant but that does not contain terms and conditions. So, when the policy document alongwith terms and conditions was not delivered to the complainant, he had no opportunity to go through the same and exercise his option of cancellation/ review within the free look period.

Secondly, if a look is made at the proposal form, Ex.CW1/1 and Ex.OP1 (Colly), which has been relied by both the parties is reproduced hereunder-

Clause 3.5 - Policy term (In Years):

Clause 3.6 - Premium Paying Terms (In Years):

            Whereas in the synopsis as well as in the WS it has been stated that the Coverage Term and Premium Paying Term was 29 years. Thus, there is contradiction in the policy term in the proposal form and WS of OP.

The complainant has not placed any document to show as how he has arrived at figure of Rs. 1,06,986.04 and to bring an end to the controversy, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to refund the premium amount paid by the complainant, which is Rs. 45,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of payment of last premium i.e 12.11.2010 till realization. Since, OP failed to deliver the policy bond alongwith document, we further award Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment, inclusive of litigation expenses.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                          (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

         Member                                                                          Member    

 

                                           (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                 President