BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.504 of 2018
Date of Instt. 17.12.2018
Date of Decision: 03.03.2020
Gopal Mukhia aged 44 years son of Kishan Vin resident of Ward No.12, Rani Pakdi, Pipra, Wesh Champaran, Bihar-845438 at present working at Mahajan & Associates, Sachdev Market, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager/Legal Representative Branch Office at TF-3, Third Floor, Eminent Mall, 261, Mahavir Marg, Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar-144006.
2. Sonali Sharma Employee of PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at TF-3, Third Floor, Eminent Mall, 261, Mahavir Marg, Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar-144006.
3. PNB Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager/Legal Representative Registered Office at Unit No.701, 702 and 703, 7th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27, MG Road, Banglore-560001.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Gaurav Anand, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3.
OP No.2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is an illiterate person and he cannot understand English language. OP No.2 approached the complainant in the month of February 2018 and told the complainant that she has a profitable insurance plan for him, she further told him that the policy is of ten years plan, but the complainant has to pay Rs.8000/- per year only for five years and after 10 years, he will get Rs.1,00,000/- as maturity amount, finding the proposed plan a profitable one, the complainant at the asking of OP No.2 visited the office of the OP No.1 on 25.02.2018 and there the complainant at the asking of OP No.2 signed some blank forms and also gave his statement of account of his bank with Punjab National Bank, Arora Prime Tower, Jalandhar bearing account No.0780000100118273 to him. At that time the OP No.2 told the complainant that an amount of Rs.8000/- will be deducted from his bank account.
2. That thereafter, on 28.02.2018 to the utter surprise and shock of the complainant, the OPs deducted an amount of Rs.99,902/- from the above said account of the complainant. The complainant approached the OPs No.1 and 2 and enquired about the same. The OP told the complainant that they have issued the insurance policy to him bearing No.22492348 of another plan. The complainant agitated that when he has purchased the insurance policy with some other plan as mentioned above, then how the OPs issued another plan without his consent, whereupon the OP No.2 started making lame excuses. The policy No.22492348 of five years plan is a result of false commitments and false representations of OP No.2 as the said plan was neither discussed by the OPs with the complainant nor purchased by the complainant from the OPs. On the repeated requests of the complainant, the OP No.2 told him to bring the policy documents and when received by him within free look period. The policy documents were received by the complainant in the month of April 2018. The complainant immediately approached the OPs and returned the policy document and requested for the cancellation of the policy. The OP No.2 employee of the OP No.1 assured the refund of the said amount to him within 2-3 months, but till today, the amount of the premium deducted from the account of the complainant has not been returned and the OPs kept on delaying the payment on one pretext or the other. The complainant being rustic villager and is illiterate person, firstly came into the words of the OPs and became s target of false representation and thereafter, the matter is delayed on one pretext or the other. There is height of negligence and unprofessional attitude of the OPs is certified effect that despite the policy being returned in free look period, the complainant has not received the premium of Rs.99,902/- deducted by the OPs from his account, which is unfair trade practice and negligence as well deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, necessity arose to file the instant complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return Rs.99,902/- deducted by the OPs from the account of the complainant as premium with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.02.2018 till its realization and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 miserably failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 3 duly served and appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed by imposing cost to the complainant under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, he is not entitled for discretionary relief. The next point raised by the OPs is that the complainant has right to return the policy document within a free look period i.e. 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document for cancellation of the policy, but the complainant miserably failed to apply for cancellation of the policy within a stipulated period and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the insurance policy and deduction of the premium from the account of the complainant are admitted fact, but the other allegations are totally incorrect and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. Precisely, we conclude that the factum in regard to purchase of insurance policy by the complainant and its premium is also admittedly deducted from the saving account of the complainant are not disputed facts.
7. The question which is to be adjudicated in the instant complaint is only one whether the complainant has virtually no knowledge about the policy provided to him by the OP. The complainant alleged that he purchased a policy, wherein premium is to be paid Rs.8000/- per year only for five years and after 10 years, he will get Rs.1,00,000/- as maturity amount and further alleged that the OP issued the other policy and deducted premium of Rs.99,900/- from his saving account. First of all, the complainant himself brought on the file copy of the insurance policy Ex.C-2 alongwith terms and conditions as well as the period of the policy is mentioned 10 years and premium paying term is five years and installment premium Rs.95,690.2/- as principal premium and after adding GST Rs.4306.5/-, the total amount payable by the complainant as yearly premium Rs.99,996.7/-. All the details has been very well mentioned in the insurance policy as well as in the terms and conditions and if the complainant was illiterate person, he can make it verify or known from any educated person. So, what if the complainant was illiterate and rustic villager, was not aware about the English language, but he was made known to return the policy within 15 days free look period, these facts has been very well elaborately claimed by the complainant in its complaint in Para No.4 that he received the policy document in the month of April and he immediately returned the policy document and requested for the cancellation of the policy, but the OP miserably failed to refund the premium amount to the complainant. The language of the Para No.4 of the complaint itself established that the complainant was well aware about the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document, if so, then duty heavily casted upon the complainant to discharge the said liability by leading cogent and convincing evidence and to establish that on which date he received the policy document and further categorically mentioned on which date he returned the policy document alongwith the request for cancellation of the policy, but the complainant evasively and knowingly does not mention the date on which he returned the policy document alongwith application for cancellation of the policy, which shows that the complainant did not return the policy documents within 15 days as stipulated period, if so, then the complainant is himself negligent for not complying the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which he himself placed on the file. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
03.03.2020 Member President
