Complaint No: 28 of 2020.

                                                                 Date of Institution: 30.01.2020.

                                                                         Date of order: 20.03.2024.

Sarabjit Kaur Daughter of Bua Singh wife of Nishan Singh, Subedar Mandi wale, Bidhipur, Fateh Nangal, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                                            ....Complainant.     

                                                          VERSUS

1.       P.N.B. Met Life Insurance Company, Branch Office, 1st Floor, Bir Complex, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot, through its Manager.

2.       Managing Director, P.N.B. Met Life, Registered Office, Unit No. 701, 702 and 703, 7th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27 M.G. Road Bangalore. Pin Code – 560001.

3.       Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Dhariwal, Gurdaspur Road, Dhariwal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties.

                                                           Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S. Aujla, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate.  

             For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Pushkar Nanda, Advocate.    

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Sarabjit Kaur, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.N.B. MetLife Ins. Co. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties). 

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is policies holders of the opposite parties in two policies i.e. Policy No. 22260015 dated 19.07.2017 and policy No. 23034525 dated 25.09.2019. It is pleaded that in policy No. 22260015 dated 19.07.2017 the complainant has to pay Rs.70,000.21/- as total installment of premium per year upto five years and term of policies is 10 years. Similarly, in policy No. 23034525 dated 25.09.2019 the complainant has to pay total premium amount Rs.49,999.68/- per year upto 10 years and term of policy is 10 years. It is further pleaded that the complainant was having A/c No. 3481000100099917 in the bank of the opposite party No. 3 at Dhariwal. She went in the bank at the time of first policy and asked to the bank officials for fixed deposit of her amount in the bank. Then they misguided her and fraudulently invested her amount in the policy No. 22260015  dated 18.07.2017 by insuring her that her amount have been converted in the shape of Fixed Deposit from her account and she can withdraw her money whenever she need. At that time, the complainant was not aware that she have to pay yearly installments. She was not in position to pay yearly installment of Rs.70,000/-. It is further pleaded that concerned agent also did not mention her phone number in the policy. He added the phone number of some other person for completing the formalities of the policy. It is further pleaded that again on dated 25.09.2019 the complainant went to the bank for fixed deposit her amount from her account, then again fraudulently by misguiding the complainant, her amount of Rs.49,999.68/- as premium has been converted in such kind of policy No. 23034525 dated 25.09.2019. At that time the mobile number of son of the complainant was added in said policy. It is further pleaded that when her son received phone of the opposite parties’ company then he came to know that the opposite parties with connivance of each other issued the said policy to the complainant which the complainant was not interested to take, but the opposite parties by misguiding her that her amount will be a fixed deposit and she can withdraw the same whenever she needed. It is further pleaded that the complainant if, would have known that she have to pay the premium after every year, then she must had  never taken such kind of policies as she is unable to pay huge installments in every year. The opposite parties should also be aware about this fact that if a person already policy holder was not able to deposit her second installment in her previous policy, how can she take another policy. So, both the policies have been given to the complainant by misguiding her, which is fraud with the complainant by the opposite parties, as she is illiterate person and do not know the conditions of the policy imposed upon her by the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them through application dated 04.12.2019 to the Bank Manager and application dated 04.12.2019 to insurance imbursement office and Grievance Redressal Team P.N.B. Met Life and also request by affidavit dated 07.11.2019 and also some correspondence through E-mails to cancelled her policies No. 22260015 and 23034525 dated 19.07.2017 and 25.09.2019 respectively and amount of policies be returned to her alongwith interest as she is unable to pay the installments per year. It is further pleaded that she also requested that she has been misguided and trapped by the respective agents of the opposite parties’ company but the opposite parties have not given any positive and responsible reply to the complainant. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to cancelled the above stated policies and to refund the amount of policies i.e. of Rs.70,000.21/- + Rs.49,999.68/- i.e. total amount of Rs.1,19,999.89/- paid by the complainant in the shape of installments alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its realization and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and harassment of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses OR any alternative relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit to the complainant, in the interest of justice and fair play.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has failed to make out a case of "Deficiency of Service" as alleged or otherwise within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that at the very outset the answering opposite parties denies the contentions, averments made by the complainant as the same are baseless and without any merit and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same and submit that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the policy bearing No. 22260015 was issued on dated 18.07.2017 and the present complaint has been filed on dated 30.01.2020 on the allegation of mis-selling of policy, the policy was duly received by the complainant and as such the cause of action has arisen in July 2017 whereas the complaint has been filed after 2 years and 7 month from the issuance of policy. In other words the Consumer Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entrain a complaint if the same is no filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. It is further pleaded that the complainant has concealed and has suppressed the material and relevant facts of the case. The complaint has been filed with malafide and dishonest intention and the complainant has not only concealed the material facts from the Hon'ble Commission, but has also twisted and distorted the same to suit her own convenience and to mislead this Hon'ble Commission. It is further pleaded that the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the answering opposite parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine and the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering opposite parties which is company of high repute. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not attached the complete policy document. The policy bearing No. 22060015 dated 19.07.2017 consisting of 50 pages whereas the complainant only place on record first 6 pages of the policy document and policy bearing No. 23034525 dated 25.09.2019 are having 27 pages whereas the complainant place on record only first 5 pages of the policy document. The terms & conditions of both the policies were withheld by the complainant only to get undue benefits. It is further pleaded that the matter of the fact is that the answering opposite parties received the e-proposal application No. 2144371160 dated 07.07.2017 through the OP No. 3 wherein the complainant proposed for Life Insurance Policy under P.N.B. MetLife Guaranteed Income Plan. The complainant appointed her son namely Amritpal Singh as nominee under the policy. The complainant signed the customer declaration form in support of the proposal form after admitting & understanding the contents thereof to be correct. Apart from that the complainant submitted her Aadhaar Card and PAN Card with the proposal form as age and address proof. Thereafter, on the basis of proposal form and documents, the answering opposite parties issued the policy bearing No. 22260015 dated 18.07.2017. The said policy was send through speed post and the same was duly received by the complainant. It is further pleaded that after issuance of the policy a welcome call was done on the Mobile No. 7009583106 by the customer care executive of the company. The said call was duly attended by the Amritpal Singh i.e. son of the complainant and he disclosed that at the time of proposing the policy he was alongwith her mother. Amritpal Singh acknowledged all the facts regarding the policy plan, amount of premium and premium paying term. At the time of welcome call, Amritpal Singh got updated E-mail ID as

          On merits, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint against the answering opposite party No. 3 is not maintainable in the present form as no services were ever hired by the complainant from the answering opposite party at any point of time relating to the alleged matter in question and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party in the alleged matter in question. It is pleaded that the alleged matter involved if any in the case is in between the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and answering opposite party No. 3 has been made as unnecessary party for none of its involvement in any manner in the alleged matter in question and thus answering opposite party has no concern with the same and the answering opposite party is a separate entity doing only banking business and have no concern with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in any manner and the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party regarding the matter in question in any manner and thus the complaint is not maintainable against it at all. It is further pleaded that P.N.B. Met Life is a separate entity and has place to sit in the branch of the bank in order to promote its business as per policy of the bank, but there is no direct dealing of the answering opposite party’s bank in any manner relating to such customers like complainant and in the present case also the answering opposite party has no direct concern with the complainant in any manner regarding the policy in question. The entire dealing as alleged in this complaint is in between the complainant and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 through their authorized officials and the answering opposite party has no knowledge regarding the said discussion in between them at any point of time and the employees of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are not employees of the answering opposite party in any manner and the answering opposite party has no control over their functions in any manner and as such the answering opposite party is not liable for any of their wrong and illegal acts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party under any circumstances and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          On merits, the opposite party No.3 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Sarabjit Kaur, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 alongwith complaint.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Pardeep, (Senior Executive, P.N.B. Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pathankot) as Ex.OP-1,2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/19 alongwith reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Sanil Kumar Maingi, (Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Gurdaspur Road Dhariwal) as Ex.OPW-3/A alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments filed by the complainant, but not filed by the opposite parties. 

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant was having account with the opposite party No.3 and had visited the bank for depositing the amount in fixed deposit but on being misguided her amount was invested in Policy No.22260015 dated 19.07.2017 and complainant was never aware that she has to pay yearly premium of Rs.70,000/- and wrong phone number was mentioned in the documents. It is further argued that again on 25.09.2019 complainant went to bank for depositing amount and again on being misguided her amount of Rs.49,999.68 was converted as policy premium against policy No.23034525 dated 25.09.2019  and mobile number of son of the complainant was added in the said policy and when call was received from the opposite parties, only then complainant came to know that her amount has been deposited in the insurance policies and in this way opposite parties have played fraud upon the complainant. It is further argued by the counsel for the complainant that when complainant has failed to pay the yearly premium of Rs.70,000/- against her earlier policy for the year 2018-2019 then no prudent man will again purchase a policy on 25.09.2019. As such opposite parties are liable to refund the amount to the complainant alongwith interest.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that complaint is time barred as policy No.22260015 was issued on 18.07.2017 and present complaint has been filed on 30.01.2020 after delay of 7 months. It is further argued that policy was issued on 18.07.2017 and since the complainant failed to pay the premium as such policy had elapsed. It is further argued that thereafter complainant again purchased second policy No.23034525 on 24.09.2019 which was dispatched vide speed post on 26.09.2019 and complainant has failed to opt for Free Look Period of 15 days for cancellation of the policy and as such both the policies have elapsed. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

12.     Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with the issuance of the policies and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

14.     To prove her case complainant has placed on record her duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1, copy of policy dated 25.09.2019 Ex.C1, copy of welcome letter Ex.C2, copy of passbook Ex.C3, copies of letters Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, copy of affidavit Ex.C7, copy of E-mail Ex.C8 whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 has placed on record affidavit of Pardeep, Senior Executive Ex.OP-1,2/A, copy of letter by opposite parties No.1 and 2 Ex.OP-1,2/1, copy of policies Ex.OP-1,2/2 and Ex.OP-1,2/3, copy of premium receipt Ex.OP-1,2/4, copy of application/declaration Ex.OP-1,2/5, copy of transfer voucher Ex.OP-1,2/6, copy of track consignment Ex.OP-1,2/7, copy of affidavit Ex.OP-1,2/8, copy of welcomed letter Ex.OP-1,2/9, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP-1,2/10, copy of welcome Ex.OP-1,2/11, copy of policy preamble Ex.OP-1,2/12, copy of Pan Card Ex.OP-1,2/13, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.OP-1,2/14, copy of policy lapse notice Ex.OP-1,2/15, copy of standing instructions decline notice Ex.OP1,2/16, copy of renewal premium receipt Ex.OP-1,2/17, copy of letter to complainant Ex.OP-1,2/18 including Ex.OP-1,2/19. Opposite party No.3 has placed on record affidavit of Sanil Kumar Maingi Ex.OPW-3/A.

15.     It is admitted fact that opposite parties No.1 and 2 had issued policy No.22260015 dated 19.07.2017 in the name of the complainant and since complainant failed to deposit the yearly premium of Rs.70,000/- the said policy had elapsed. It is further admitted fact that again on 25.09.2019 policy No.23034525 dated 25.09.2019 was issued in the name of the complainant with yearly premium of Rs.49,999.68. It is further admitted fact that complainant had approached opposite parties No.1 and 2 for cancellation of the policies on 04.12.2019. The only issue for adjudication is whether the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of premium to the complainant.

16.     Perusal of record shows that first policy bearing No.22260015 was issued on 18.07.2017 and was dispatched to the complainant on 22.07.2017 but since the complainant failed to opt for free look cancellation period of 15 days as such the said policy had elapsed. Similarly, second policy No.23034525 was issued on 24.09.2019 which was dispatched on 26.09.2019 and as per track consignment report the said policy document was received by the complainant on 10.10.2019. Accordingly, the complainant was having free look period upto 26.10.2019 but perusal of file shows that complainant had sent letter for cancellation of policies for the first time on 04.12.2019 after passing of period of free look under the policy and since the cancellation request was made after passing of free look period as such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

17.     We are also relied upon order of Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in First Appeal No.183 of 2021 decided on 09.02.2022 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble State Commission that failure to opt for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days the complainant is not entitled to receive the refund. We have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has miserably failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

18.     Accordingly, complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.     

19.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

20.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

March 20, 2024                                                     Member.

*YP*