THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 682 of 2014
Date of Institution : 30.12.2014
Date of Decision : 20.10.2015
Mr.Gurjit Singh S/o Sh. Balkar Singh R/o VPO Waryam Nangal, Kathu Nangal, Districtr Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
PNB Met Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer having one of its office at Elante Mall, 2nd Floor, Mall Road, Amritsar service through its Branch Manager
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh.Danish Bansal,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gurjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he was approached by the agent of the opposite party, who allured him to obtain the policy and the complainant obtained Insurance policy bearing No. 202029143 from the opposite party by paying premium of Rs. 30000/- .According to the complainant he did not receive the policy documents. Complainant approached the opposite party time and again and even wrote letter dated 13.10.2014T to the effect that the complainant has not received the original policy documents and requested the opposite party to supply the same to the complainant as early as possible. But inspite of that the opposite party did not furnish the original policy documents to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 30000/- alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant has voluntarily applied for the insurance policy and filled in the proposal form bearing No. 202029143 and paid premium of Rs. 30000/- and agreed to pay the premiums for a period of 10 years towards the said plan with sum assured Rs. 3,10,000/-. The complainant also signed up benefit illustration form and was well aware of all the terms and conditions of the policy.
-3-
The policy documents were despatched to the complainant on 18.5.2013 through speed post via consignment number EK215490178IN which was duly delivered . It was submitted that in the policy documents , it was clearly stated that the policy holder have the right to cancel the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents, if he is not satisfied with the policy contract. The complainant failed to remit the payment towards the premium due for 30.4.2014, as such the policy was lapsed. It was further submitted that if the complainant would not have received the policy documents, he would have complained about the same in his first letter dated 20.8.2014,. The complainant failed to submit any request for non receipt of policy docunments or re-issuance of the same . The complainant even failed to produce indemnity bond so that the opposite party can process the request of duplicate policy issuance. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3 Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of acknowledgement Ex.C-2, copy of letter Ex.C-3, copy of pass book Ex.C-4.
4 Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.M.Udaiyakumar Jain, Manager Legal Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10.
5 We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the
-4-
ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties,, it is clear that complainant in order to obtain Insurance policy from the opposite party filled in and signed the proposal form bearing No.202029143 and paid Rs. 30000/- as premium through Punjab National Bank and the same was got encashed by the opposite party as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant Ex.C-4. The complainant submitted that he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party time and again and he also wrote letter dated 13.10.2014 Ex.C-3 to the effect that the complainant had not received the original policy documents and requested to the opposite party to supply the same to the complainant as early as possible. But inspite of that the opposite party did not furnish the original policy documents to the complainant. As such the complainant does not want to continue the policy with the opposite party. So he requested the opposite party for the refund of the amount of the pemium but the opposite party did no pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that complainant has voluntarily applied for the insurance policy and filled in the proposal form bearing No.
-5-
202029143 and paid premium of Rs. 30000/- and agreed to pay the premiums for a period of 10 years towards the said plan with sum assured Rs. 3,10,000/-. On receipt of the proposal form alongwith initial premium of Rs. 30000/- from the complainant, opposite party issued policy bearing No.21075939 on 30.4.2013 to the complainant and the policy documents were despatched to the complainant on 18.5.2013 through speed post vide No. EK215490178IN which was duly delivered. The complainant even failed to produce indemnity bond so that the opposite paty could process the request of duplicate policy issuance. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in order to obtain the insurance policy product “Met Money Back”, complainant filled in and signed the proposal form bearing No. 202029143 Ex.OP2 and paid initial premium of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant submitted that he did not receive the policy documents from the opposite party despite the fact that he approached the opposite party time and again and also wrote letter dated 13.10.2014 Ex,.C-3 for this purpose to the opposite party but inspite of that opposite party did not supply the policy documents to the complainant. It is the duty of the Insurance company to prove that they delivered the policy documents to the insured. Here in this case the opposite party has submitted that on the basis of proposal form Ex.OP2 and on
-6-
receipt of the initial premium of Rs. 30000/- . Opposite party issued policy bearing No. 21075939 on 30.4.2013 to the complainant and despatched the policy documents to the complainant on 18.5.2013 through speed post vide consignment No. EK215490178IN . But the opposite party neither produced any receipt of speed post nor produced any record of the opposite party vide which the policy was despatched to the complainant nor examined any person from the post office i.e. postman who allegedly delivered the policy documents to the complainant or to any other person and what was the relation of that person with the complainant. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 decided on 22.1.2013 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasjit Walia that where a person who delivered the shipment has not been produced nor his affidavit has been filed and where the shipment has been delivered to 3rd person, same can not be considered as the delivery of the policy to the complainant. Nor the opposite party could produce any record of the post office i.e. Dak Book of postman to prove that on which date the policy documents were deliverd and to whom. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Unit Trust of India Vs. Ravinder Kumar Shukla 2005(2) CPC 683 that where the documents/cheques were sent by the UTI which could not be received by the payee, it was held that post office acted
-7-
as agent of UTI while sending the cheques. If the UTI failed to prove its proper delivery to the payee, UTI is liable for deficiency in service for non delivery of the cheques.
9. So it stands fully proved on record that opposite party has failed to prove that policy documents have been delivered to the complainant/insured, therefore, complainant could not exercise his option of free look period and now the complainant does not want to continue with this policy. Opposite party is,therefore, liable to refund the amount of premium to the complainant subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and other costs pertaining to stamp duty and medical examination of the proposer, if any.
10. Resultantly complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of premium subject to deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover and other costs pertaining to stamp duty and medical examination of the proposer, if any, to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders, failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a on that amount from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case
-8-
could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
20.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
