BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.533 of 2019
Date of Instt. 05.11.2019
Date of Decision:06.07.2022
Harvinder Kaur 244-Golden Avenue-II Jalandhar 144022.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. PNB Metlife, 3rd Floor, Eminent Mall, Near Guru Nank Mission Chowk, Jalandhar.
2. PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd., Unit No.101 Techniplex Complex First Floor SV Road Goregoan West Mumbai 400062.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Ramanjit Singh, Auth. Rep. for Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant through her authorized representative, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a policy holder of PNB Metlife bearing policy no.22404652 client ID:54975474 and further the complainant has written numbers of letter and also visited Jalandhar Branch Office time and again in the last 18 months and also has served two legal notices through her advocate, but no reply has been given by the OPs. The complainant went to Punjab National bank Jalandhar for depositing money in FIX Deposit in the month of December 2017, but she was deceived to invest in some other mode where the return is more than fix deposit which is for about 11 to 12% whereas in Fix Deposit it is much less about 7% for one year. Moreover, she was told that this is only one time investment. She was made to convince by the OP’s employee to invest one lakh and moreover she was assured to minimum guaranty return 11 to 12% per annum. Her husband was abroad and she was staying at her native place during that period and therefore the policy was received by the servant at Jalandhar residence and this was not known to her, therefore she was not aware about details of the policy for a long time. It is further mentioned that the policy details in the brochure/booklet is mere formality and at the same time one sided, as when all the payment is given well in advance and all the information is conveyed/discussed with the customer at the time of payment of first installment when the customer is made to get convinced of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. So, in these circumstances the insurance company cannot take the plea of instructions written in the policy booklet/brochure which is delivered later on after long time to the customer. It is informed that knowingly, intentionally and deliberately wrong mobile number of herself was given in the policy and other related documents so that no welcome call is received by her and no facts and details of the policy are conveyed to her which is must and mandatory in such cases of insurance policies. Also the name of her husband is written wrong as Paramjit Singh instead of Ramanjit Singh. Moreover, as her husband is income tax payee due to all these deliberate errors for personal gain/interest of OP’s employee to earn money in the form of incentive and to achieve company targets just provided wrong and incorrect information and in that way deceived and befooled herself by the concern employee of OPs’ insurance company. Wrong information was provided just to deceive the customer (her) and also to gain financially through incentives and other benefits and moreover that type of policy was issued where the maximum benefit was for the company employees and least benefit for the customer and that too by providing wrong information to her, therefore it is case of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. It is clear cut deficiency in service, wrongful gain in wrongful manner from the customer at any cost, deception, malafide intention and also against the ethics of the business rules and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the money alongwith interest or shift the policy to some other type where the investment is one time and the return is more, which is mutually is acceptable to her as well as insurance company as every contact/agreement is legally valid if it is acceptable to both the parties, otherwise exemplary damages and costs must be paid of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony which the complainant suffered.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking 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 further averred that at the very outset the OPs denies the contentions, averments made by the complainant as the same are baseless and without any merits and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same and submit that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. 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 complainant has not only concealed the material facts from the Commission, but has also twisted and distorted the same to suit his own convenience and to mislead this Commission. It is further averred that the contract of insurance between the complainant and OPs is governed by its terms and conditions. On merits, the factum with regard to availing the MetLife Policy by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the Auth. Rep. of the complainant and Ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The contention of the complainant is that she is the policy holder of PNB MetLife policy no.22404652. She has alleged that she has been deceived by the OPs to invest the money in some other mode and not in the fixed deposit. She was convinced that she should invest the money, where the return is 11-12% with guaranty, therefore she invested Rs.1,00,000/-. When she went to the bank and expressed her willingness not to continue the policy, she was advised not to deposit further installments. When she applied for cancellation of her policy, but she received a message vide which her request for cancellation of policy was rejected by the OPs. She has requested to allow the complaint. She has not been received and gone through the details of the terms and conditions of the policy as the policy was received at Jalandhar by her servant and she was not there at her residence at Jalandhar, so she is not aware about the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. The contention of the OPs is that there is no deficiency of service nor there is any unfair trade practice. The policy was received by the complainant and the terms and conditions of the policy were also explained to her. In her proposal form, she gave the detail only after being satisfied. The complainant has not been received by anybody of the OPs. She was supposed to pay the premium for five years as she was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term benefits. The complainant took the insurance cover in the name of her daughter Komalpreet Kaur. She has signed the proposal form after admitting and understanding the contents of the same. She and her husband have submitted a letter regarding other insurance policy with LIC on 20.12.2017. The delivery report has been proved on the record. No fraud has been committed by the OPs. Thus, the complaint be dismissed.
8. The policy of PNB MetLife Guaranteed Income Plan has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-2. The OPs have referred the terms and conditions mentioned therein that the complainant was at liberty to cancel the policy by giving a signed written notice to them within 15 days, but no such cancellation was given within 15 days by the complainant, whereas the contention of the complainant is that she did not go through the details of the terms and conditions of the policy as she was not at home and the policy was received by her servant. The correspondence has been proved by the complainant in the shape of letters Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-6B. Ex.C7 is the reminder by way of email, Ex.C-8 is again a letter written to the OPs through email. In all the correspondence, the complainant has alleged that she was not in the knowledge of the fact that she is to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- per year for seven years. Once she came to know about this fact, she applied for cancellation, but her request has not been considered. She has further raised allegations against the employee of the OP namely Sunita, who has allegedly convinced them and misguided them. The OPs have relied upon the proposal form Ex.OP-1. Perusal of this documents shows that in the 2nd column where the name of the person is to be written the name of Dharminder Tiwari has been cancelled and the name of Sunita has been mentioned. The policy was taken in the name of Komalpreet Kaur. Page No.7 shows that the name of the authorized person has been mentioned as Dharminder Tiwari, whereas on the first page, the name has been mentioned as Sunita. This itself shows that there was connivance between Dharminder Tiwari and Sunita. Both may be the employees of the OPs, but it supports the contention of the complainant that she was convinced to take the policy and was not informed about the terms and conditions of the policy. Ex.OP-2 has been proved, which is the information given by the complainant regarding another policy from LIC. This shows the intention of the complainant that she informed the OPs about an other life cover. Ex.OP-3 is welcome letter. In this welcome letter also, the name of the authorized agent has been mentioned as Dharminder Tiwari, which is against the first page of Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-5 is the letter dated 20.12.2018 written to the complainant to supply the document i.e. colour copy of driving license, PAN Card or Passport and vide Ex.OP-6, the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy has been declined and the request of refund of the money has also been declined. Perusal of Ex.OP-6 shows that the request of the complainant has been declined only on the ground that the complainant did not raise any concern when she received the policy. She was well aware of the terms and conditions and they are unable to understand any reason for not highlighting any concern regarding the above said policy for more than one year and on this ground only, the request was declined. As discussed above the agent filled the proposal form and the name of the authorized person has been mentioned differently in the same form. This clearly shows that the complainant was not explained any terms and conditions before investing the money in the insurance policy. From the documents itself, it is not clear as to who was the authorized person and agent. This proves the fact that there was nobody authorized to explain the terms and conditions to the complainant. The complainant has categorically stated that she did not go through the terms and conditions and the policy was received by her servant is sufficient reason for not getting the policy cancelled at the relevant time. So, the OP was not justified in refusing to cancel the policy and not giving the full refund to the complainant. In the facts of this case, ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., III (2008) CPJ 63 (SC) is fully attracted, wherein it was held that Insurance Company being in a dominant position, often acts in an unreasonable manner and after having accepted the value of a particular insured goods, disowns that very figure on one pretext or the other, when they are called upon to pay compensation. This ‘take it or leave it’, attitude is clearly unwarranted not only as being bad in law, but ethically indefensible. It is generally seen that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. In similar set of facts the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt.Usha Yadav & Others 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 went on to hold as under:-
“It seems that the insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. All conditions which generally are hidden, need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy.
The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreement, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. Insurance Company also directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- for luxury litigation, being rich.
9. So, in view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. They have received the premium from the complainant. The complainant was not made aware about the terms and conditions of the policy as the OPs themselves are not clear about the authorized agent to explain the things to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the money i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. 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 Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
06.07.2022 Member Member President
