Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/42/2017

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Met Life - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ram Singh Somal

14 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.42 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 10.07.2017                                                          

                                                    Date of decision    : 14.06.2018

Jaswant Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of House No.13, Sector 26, Block-A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

PNB Met Life, having its office at Kunal Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana through its Manager.

…..Opposite Party

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.               

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                   

     Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh.S.S.Mann Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Sh. Vishal Sharma, Adv.Cl. for Opposite party.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Jaswant Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Surjit Singh, resident of House No.13, Sector 26, Block-A, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased an insurance policy under name PNB Met Life from OP, vide policy No.21265827 on 27.02.2014 for the term of 15 years under the payment mode annual Rs.49,999/-. The complainant deposited the first premium amount through cheque No.280583 dated 20.02.2014.  Thereafter the complainant move an application and approached office of OP with regard to cancellation of the policy and withdrawing the said amount of Rs.49,999/-. The OP started the proceedings from the date of said application. The OP issued a letter dated 11.05.2016 to the complainant vide which OP demanded some documents with regard to the personal ID of the complainant i.e. copy of passport and driving license etc.  The complainant submitted the requisite documents as demanded by the OP. Thereafter one Parminder Singh, Documents Collector of OP collected the said policy on 13.03.2015 from the house of complainant for cancellation of the same but the OP did not cancel the said policy  and returned the policy through registered post which was received by the complainant on 10.04.2014. Thereafter, the complainant sent a reminder dated 06.05.2016 with regard to the cancellation of policy but no action has been taken by the OP. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 08.05.2017 upon OP through counsel but all in vain.  The complainant so many times visited the OP and requested to redress the grievance but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the premium amount i.e Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed its written reply. In reply to complaint, the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and filed with malafide intention and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law;  the present complaint does not fall within the definition of a 'Consumer Dispute' under the Act and the present complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. As regards the facts of the complaint, OP stated that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of their product " Met Endowment Saving Plan" had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up the proposal form. On the basis of the information provided by the complainant, a policy bearing No.21265827 was issued on 26.02.2014 stipulating an annual premium of Rs.49,999/- for a sum assured amounting to Rs.6,87,730/- for the premium payment term of 15 years.   The complainant vide letter dated 19.01.2015 alleged that the policy was mis-sold to the complainant and vide letter dated 21.01.2015, the OP requested the complainant to submit a copy of PAN card as signature proof.  Thereafter vide letter dated 11.05.2016, the OP requested the complainant to submit self attested copy of PAN card/driving license/passport. It is further stated that OP shall process the cancellation of the policy upon receipt of the Know Your Customer(KYC) documents from the complainant.  But the complainant has failed to provide KYC documents, due to which, the policy of the complainant could not be cancelled. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of policy Ex. C-2, copy of application dt.16.04.2014 Ex. C-3, copy of application dated 13.03.2014 Ex. C-4, copy of reminder dated 06.05.2016 Ex. C-5, copy of reminder dated 19.01.2015 Ex. C-6, copy of policy Ex. C-7, legal notice Ex. C-8, postal receipt Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Sr. Manager Ex. OPW1/A, copy of policy Ex. OP-1, copy of letter dated 21.01.2015 Ex. OP-2, copy of letter dated 11.05.2016 Ex. OP-3 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the said insurance policy- "PNB Met Life" from the OP and paid premium amounting to Rs.49,999/-. But after some time the complainant submitted an application with the OP for cancellation of the aforesaid policy and refund of the premium already paid. The complainant visited OP so many times/issued reminders/legal notice etc. but of no avail. The OP opines that the complainant could not provide the KYC(Know your Customer) document to the OP and therefore OP could not process the complainant's case for cancellation of the policy. Ld. counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP demanded various documents with regard to the personal ID of the complainant such as copy of passport, copy of driving license, copy of pan card and some other documents etc., which were readily provided by the complainant to the OP. Original policy document was also handed over to the OP, but the policy has not been cancelled till date. He further argued that the OP could have created the KYC document on computer on the basis of information/documents provided to the OP by the complainant and consequently could have process the cancellation of the policy process. Ld. counsel also pointed out that the KYC is always required at the time of purchase of policy and not at the time of cancellation of the policy. Ld. counsel for the complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint and refund of premium alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
6. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the OP stated that complaint be decided on merits as per their written version/evidence etc.
7. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced, pleadings and heard oral submissions of the Ld. counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that OP has committed deficiency in service by not cancelling the said policy of the complainant. Oral submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant have much to speak in favour of the complainant and we agree with it.
8. In view of above, we accept the complaint and direct the OP to create KYC of the complainant on the basis of information provided by the complainant to the OP and if more information is required, the same can be obtained from the complainant. After creating the KYC of the complainant, process the case of the complainant for cancellation of the said policy and refund the amount of premium as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is further evident from the material placed on record by the complainant that the OP was negligent in discharging its obligations towards the complainant. Hence, OP has committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment and further he is also entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the OP fails to comply with the order within the stipulated period, OP shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.
9. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 12.06.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 14.06.2018