Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/175/2018

Vikas Stylo - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender Thakar

14 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.175/2018.

Date of instt.14.06.2018. 

                                                                                                Date of Decision:14.10.2019

 

Vikas Stylo son of Rameshwar Dass resident of Thakar Basti, Fatehabad.

                                                                                                                                ..Complainant.

                                                                Versus

1.PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: ‘Brigade Seshamahal’, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560001 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

 

2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, c/o Punjab National Bank, M.M.College Extension Branch, Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

 

3.PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, c/o Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Miyanwali, Dehradun(Uttranchal)-248001 through its Branch Manager.

 

..Opposite parties.

     

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.                                                                   

 

Before        Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                                     Sh. Jasvinder Singh, Member.

 

Present :                       Sh.Jitender Thakkar, Advocate for complainant.

                                       Sh.Vijay Mahiya, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

                                      The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had obtained Metlife Insurance Policy Monthly Income Plan dated 30.10.2013 from the OPs Bank and the complainant had been making the payment of premium against the said insurance policy regularly and as such he is consumer of the OPs as defined in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further submitted that the said policy was for a period of 10 years and an amount of Rs.4,998/- annually used to be deducted from the account of the complainant maintained by him with OP no. 2.

 2.                            It is further submitted that at the time of obtaining the above said insurance policy, it was informed by Sh. Deepak Naniwal, the agent of the OPs that the said insurance policy was for a period of 4 years and after 4 years the complainant shall be released the payment. However, after the passage of 4 years, the complainant was not released the money as assured by the OPs and therefore, an e-mail dated 09.05.2018 was sent by the complainant to the OPs requesting therein to release the payment to the complainant but all in vain. The OPs instead of releasing the payment to the complainant sent an e-mail on 22.05.2018 with the directions to sent the written complaint through registered letter to the Company at their head office. Therefore, the OPs instead of releasing the payment to the complainant have been forcing the complainant to keep the matter pending under one pretext or the other. It is further submitted that the complainant had made many requests to the OPs for refund his money but all in vain. It is further submitted that the above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled for receiving compensation. The complainant has further prayed that the Ops may be directed to release the payment of the amount deposited by the complainant with the OPs along with interest. The complainant has also prayed that the OPs may be directed for making the payment of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

3.                             Upon notice, the OPs appeared through their counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written version wherein various preliminary objections with regard to barred by limitation, territorial jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action and concealment of true and correct facts etc.; have been raised.

4.                             In reply on merits, it is submitted that the prayer of complainant for refund of total premium paid by him with interest in the present case is completely against the established law. It is a settled principle of law that the premium is given by an insured to cover the risk for the given period and the insurer covers the risk for the period for which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was paid and therefore there is no question of refund of the premium as per settled law on the subject. It is further submitted that in case the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy in that eventuality, he could have withdrawn or cancel the policy during the free look period i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. However, during the free look period the complainant did not raise any objection towards the terms and conditions of the policy.

5.                             It is further submitted that the insurance company believing the information given by the complainant in the proposal form to be true and correct in all respects had issued the subject policy in favour of the complainant. The complainant had signed the proposal form in English language mentioned therein that he is 12^th pass and he was comfortably in a position to read and understand the contents of proposal form and terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

6.                             It is further submitted that the complainant for the very first time approached to the insurance company for 24.11.2017 through an e-mail vide which the complainant demanded to refund of the premium paid by him. The said email was duly replied by the Insurance Company vide email dated 27.11.2017 wherein it was categorically mentioned that the complainant was eligible to surrender the subject policy at any nearest branch of insurance policy. It is further submitted that the rejection of the request of the complainant for refund of the premium deposited by him, is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the present complaint is without any merit and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.                             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex.CW1/A and the documents as Annexure C1 to C21 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Sharma working as Senior Manager (legal) as Annexure RW1/A along with the documents as Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 and closed the evidence of the Ops.

8.                             We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the insurance policy namely PNB Met Life Monthly Income Plan on 30.10.2013 and the complainant had made payment against the said insurance policy regularly. The said policy was for 10 years.

9.                             It is further the case of the complainant that at the time of obtaining the above said insurance policy it was informed by the agent of the OPs that the said policy was for a period of 4 years and after a lapse of 4 years the complainant shall pay release the payment. However after a lapse of 4 years no payment was released by the OPs to the complainant and as such on 09.05.2018, the complainant sent an e-mail to the OPs requesting therein for release of the payment to the complainant. However, the OPs instead of releasing the payment to the complainant sent an e-mail dated 22.05.2018 with the directions for sending written complaint through registered post in the Head-office of the OPs. Therefore, the OPs instead of releasing the payment has kept the matter pending on one pretext or the others and the payment of the complainant has been withheld illegally and without any basis.

10.                          On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant is not entitled for getting the refund of the amount deposited by him at this stage. It is the further case of the OPs that above said act on the part of the OPs is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the same is sustainable in the eyes of law.

11.                          We have duly considered arguments advanced by both the parties and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is a settled principle of law that in the matter of insurance, the terms and the conditions of the insurance policy is contract between both the parties and the terms and the conditions of the insurance policy are binding on both the parties. It is also settled principle law that an insurance policy is to be construed strictly as per the terms and the conditions of the policy document and no deviation of the same is permissible. It is also settled principle of law that in case a person signs a document, it is the presumption of law that he has signed the same after reading and understanding the contents of the same until an unless, it is proved that the signature has been obtained by force or fraud. In the present case, the complainant has signed the proposal form after going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

12.                          In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has deposited installments of premium continuously for 4 years. Therefore, he is seeking refund of the amount paid by him for a period of 4 years. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and a perusal of the same reveals that there is a provision of surrender of the policy by the consumer. As per the provision of surrender of the policy as provided in Section 4.4(2) of the terms and conditions of the policy after a regular premium for atleast 3 full years have been paid, the policy acquires a surrender value as set out in Section 4.5. Instead of continuing the policy the same may be surrendered for its surrender value. Upon payment of the surrender value, the policy terminates and all other benefits payable by the company under the policy shall seize.

13.                          In view of the above said provision of surrender policy as provided in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the amount paid by him as premium of the four installments. We are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount as per the surrender policy provided in Section 404 and Section 4.5 of the terms and conditions and the policy. The present complaint is accordingly dispose off with directions to the OPs for making payment to the complainant as per the surrender policy as provided in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OPs are directed for making compliance of the present order within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise the amount shall carry in interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the default period. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 14.10.2019

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

                     (Jasvinder Singh)                          District Consumer Disputes                      

                  Member                              Redressal Forum,Fatehabad