Haryana

Karnal

CC/42/2022

Sunil Kumar Trehan - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sudarshan Kumar Patlan

28 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No.42 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.24.01.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 28.08.2024

 

Sunil Kumar Trehan son of Shri Inder Mohan Lal, resident of house no.11, Vishal Nagar, Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar, now residing at house no.443, Sector-8, (II), Urban Estate, Karnal aged about 59 years (aadhar no.5972 5399 5434).

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Bhagwan Sahal Palace, 4^th floor main Road, Naya Bans, Sector-1, G.B. Nagar, Noida-201301 through its Authorized signatory.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO no.203 2^nd floor, sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun (Uttrakhand) through its Branch Manager.
4. Sunita Sales Executive PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited posted in Punjab National Bank, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun. (Uttrakhand).
5. Mr. Vivek Mishra Sales Executive PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited posted in Punjab National Bank, Kaulagarh Road, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun. (Uttrakhand).

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Sudarshan Patlan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narinder Kumar, counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2.

                   OPs no.3 and 4 exparte, vide order dated 04.07.2022.

                   OP no.5 given up, vide order dated 08.09.2022.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant is presently residing at Karnal in the rented house no.443 Sector8, Part-II, Karnal as their son in law has been transferred from Dehradun to Karnal in Central Bank of India, Karnal. The complainant and his wife Sunita Trehan are blessed with one daughter Smt Payal who is married with Saurab Malohtra who is residing in Dehradun. The complainant and his wife used to remain in the house of their daughter. Complainant and his wife are having a joint account with the OP no.3, vide account no.1175000110137711. In the month of January, 2021 the complainant wanted to make some investment so he with his sister visited the OP no.3 to consult some investment plans with OP no.1 executed. On that Mr. Vivek Mishra from OP no.1 described some plans to the complainant. The complainant wants to invest Rs.5.00 lakh i.e. Rs.2.5 lakh in his name and Rs.2.5 lakh in the name of his wife. Accordingly, he described an investment plan with payout of five years and said that five lakhs would be transferred to FD account and from that FD account, one lakh would be transferred to the policy on annual basis. At the time of discussion, it was told to the complainant and his wife that annual premium of said policy would be Rs.5000/- each. The complainant and his wife were advised to deposit Rs.5.00 lakh together with and an amount of Rs.5000/- per annum would be deducted from the said amount for each policy and qua the extra deposited amount would be paid handsome interest and amount shall remain in the shape of FDR.  It is further alleged that in the end of January, the complainant alongwith his wife went to the OP no.3 where the official of the OPs no.1 and 3 got completed certain formalities regarding insurance policies. The amount of Rs.5.00 lakh got debited from the joint account of complainant and his wife from their saving account on 29.01.2021. Thereafter, on 05.03.2021, two policies were issued of dated 06.02.2021 by the OP no.1 which were received by the sister of the complainant from the OP no.3 vide policies no.23642304 in the name of Sunita Trehan and 23640720 in the name of complainant. When complainant readover the contents of said policies, then he was surprised an shocked that that the said policies have been issued with the annual premium of Rs.2.5 each, instead of Rs.50000/- per annum. It was very shocked to know that said policies have been issued with an annual premium of Rs.2.5 lakh whereas as per the discussion between the complainant and the OP no.4 it was told that the said policies would be issued for the annual premium of Rs.50000/-. On coming to know the said fact of complainant on 27.03.2021 sent an email to the OP no.1 for cancellation of said policies and to return the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in their aforesaid joint account. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times and requested to refund the amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. However, with great difficulty, OP no.1 cancelled the policy of wife of complainant and refunded the amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs  but has not refunded the amount of policy of the complainant. The facts mentioned above clearly goes to prove that the OPs by not cancelling/free looking the policy and not returning the amount of premium and interest accrued thereon has rendered the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts; etc.  On merits, it is pleaded that complainant approached the OPs through agent for the purchase of the life insurance policy in Dehradun and has submitted the declaration for submission of E-proposal form/Application bearing no.314808107 dated 27.01.2021 alongwith the initial premium amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of DD in the name of PNB Metlife and medical Examination form for himself. Before acceptance of the proposal, the adequate information with regard to the contents of the proposal form, illustrations addendum forms, product, nature and its significance were explained to the policyholder and after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy, the declaration of proposal form were duly signed by the policyholder. On the basis of the information furnished in the proposal form, the policy was issued. The details of the policy is as under:-

Product/Plan	PNB Metlife Guaranteed Savings Plan
Policy Number	23640720
Date of Issue	31.01.2021
Date of Commencement of Risk	28.01.2021
Policy Holder/Life Assured	Mr. Sunil Kumar Trehan
Nominee	Mrs. Sunita Trehan
Sum Assured	Rs.17,47,61/-
Policy Term	10 years
Premium Payment Term	5 years
Premium Amount	Rs.2,50,000/- (approx)
Premium Frequency	Annual

 

The OPs had sent/dispatched the policy document on 06.02.2021 via speed post bearing POD no.EA400958570IN to the complainant alongwith forwarding letter stating the Feelook provision. The said policy received by the complainant on 15.02.2021. The freelook period for subject policy was provided reproduced as under:-

“Freelook Provision: Please go through the terms and conditions of your policy very carefully. If you have any objections to the terms and conditions of your policy, you may cancel the policy by giving a signed written notice to us within 15 days from the date of receiving your policy, stating the reasons for your objection and you will be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject to a deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover, stamp duly and/or the expenses incurred on medical examination (if any).”

 The welcome call regarding the policy was also done in which the policy was also done in which the policy term and premium paying term and other conditions were explained to the customer and no concern was raised by the policyholder during welcome call and retained the policy document also after the expiry of free look period. Thus, as per settled law, subject policy with its terms and conditions was duly accepted by life assured thereby subject policy became a duly entered contract between the complainant and insurance company. It is further pleaded that after the four months of delivery of policy document, on 14.06.2021, the OPs have received the concern/grievance from the complainant regarding the mis-selling of the policy. The OPs have replied the grievance vide letter dated 22.06.2021 and informed the complainant that the said policy was issued on 31.01.2021 on the basis of the information provided by complainant E-application and duly signed declaration alongwith initial premium. All the complainant has submitted an Auto Debit Mandate Form authorizing the OPs for the future premiums to be collected through the bank account which clearly states that the policy is sold as a regular premium policy. Further as per the regulatory guidelines, the complainant is provided with a ‘right to reconsider’ option wherein the policyholder if dissatisfied with any of the terms and conditions of the policy, then he can request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy document. Further, the OPs did not receive any concern from the complainant end till 14.06.2021 which is almost 5 months after issuance. Accordingly, the OPs are unable to accede to the request of cancellation of the policy and refund of premium. It is further pleaded that wife of complainant namely Sunita Trehan has also submitted proposal form and purchased one policy bearing no.23642304 on the same day with the same agent but she had raised a concern within the freelook period and the same was cancelled by the OPs and the amount of premium was refunded to her. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.3 and 4 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 14.07.2022 of the Commission.

4.             OP no.5 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party by suffering his statement dated 08.09.2022.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy of complainant Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy of Sunita Trehan Ex.C2, copy of account statement of complainant Ex.C3, copy of application for cancellation of policy dated 12.04.2021 Ex.C4, copy of application for cancellation of policy dated 12.04.2021 wife of the complainant Ex.C5, copy of complaint against PNB regarding cheating dated 23.05.2021 Ex.C6, copy of complaint through email against PNB regarding cheating dated 17.08.2021 Ex.C7,  complaint through email dated 14.09.2021 Ex.C8, copy of rent agreement of complainant’s daughter Ex.C9, copy of undertaking of Central Bank of India regarding present posting Ex.C10, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devender Verma Manager Ex.OP1/A, power of attorney Ex.R1, copy of declaration Ex.R2, copy of application form Ex.R3, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R4, copy of saving plan Ex.R5, copy of letter dated 22.06.2021 Ex.R6 and closed the evidence on 05.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 9.            Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that in the month of January, 2021 complainant and his wife want to invest Rs.five lakhs and purchased two insurance policies from the OPs with the assurance that annual premium would be Rs.50000/- each. The complainant was surprised to see the said policies that annual premium of Rs.2.5 lakh each instead of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant approached the OPs and requested to cancel the policies and refunded the entire amount but OPs cancel the policy of his wife and refunded the amount of Rs.2.5 lakh but neither cancel the policy of complainant and nor refunded the deposited amount. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complainant.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that on the application dated 27.01.2021, duly signed by the complainant, for purchase of PNB Metlife Guaranteed Saving Plan, the proposal was accepted and accordingly, the policy documents were sent to the complainant on 06.02.2021, which were duly delivered to the complainant on 15.02021.  Complainant did not approach the OPs for cancellation of the policy in question within freelook period of 15 days.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Complainant has alleged that he purchased the policy for the annual premium of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.2,50,000/- and when he know about, he approached the OPs for cancellation of the policy in question. The policy in question was purchased on 27.01.2021 and received by the complainant on 15.02.2021. Complainant alleged vide email dated 27.03.2021, he requested the OPs for cancellation of the policy but there is nothing on the file that complainant has sent the alleged email to the OPs. Complainant has relied upon the application Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 dated 12.04.2021 and copy of email Ex.C7 dated 17.08.2021 and copy of email Ex.C8 dated 14.09.2021. There is nothing on the file to prove that the complainant has applied for cancellation of the policy within freelook period.

13.           The freelook period defined in the policy Ex.R4, which is reproduced as under:-

        4.1 Free Look Period

Please go through the terms and conditions of your policy very carefully. If you have any objections to the terms and conditions of your policy, you may cancel the policy by giving a signed written notice to us within 15 days from the date of receiving your policy, stating the reasons for your objection and you will be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject to a deduction of proportionate risk premium for the period of cover, stamp duly and/or the expenses incurred on medical examination (if any).”

14.           As per the instructions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority the policy holder may cancel the policy by returning it to the company within 15 days of receiving together with letter of request it to be cancelled and then company will refund the premium paid by the policy holder less deduction for proportionate premium for the time that the company  had provided cover up to the date of cancellation and for expenses incurred by the company for medical examination of the life assured, stamp charges and expenditure incurred in that connection. Thus, the complainant could cancel the policy within freelook period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. Moreover, complainant did not opt to cancel the policy within freelook period. Thus, the complainant is himself at on fault.  If the complainant has any grievances with regard to the insurance policy, he would have approached the OPs within freelook period of 15 days. It is not a case of the complainant that he has not received the policy alongwith terms and conditions. The complainant did not arise any objection during the freelook period as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It was the duty of the complainant to approach the OPs within free look period to cancel the insurance policy but he failed to approach the OPs within freelook period.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 28.08.2024

                                                                 President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

        (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                                    Member