Delhi

East Delhi

CC/151/2018

NARENDER KR. ROHTAGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB MET LIFE - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 151/18

 

Shri Narender Kumar Rohtagi

B-29, Tarang Apartments

Plot No. 19, I.P. Extension

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                            ….Complainant

 

Vs.

         

M/s. PNB Metlife India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Through its Delhi Branch

4^th Floor, Parmesh Tower-II

Karkardooma Community Centre

Delhi – 110 092

Through:

 Mr. Karnail Singh,

Agent Code No. 99131870 and

M/s. R.K. Aggarwal and Yogesh Rana

Senior Business Managers Agency Sales                             …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 07.05.2018

Judgement Reserved on: 26.02.2020

Judgement Passed on:28.02.2020

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          The present complaint has been filed by Shri Narender Kumar Rohtagi against M/s. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP), with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.      The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a PNB Metlife Endowment Savings Plan Plus (MEFPP) Policy no. 22459513 from OP through their agency code no. 99131870 of Delhi Branch of PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 49,922/- on 03.02.2018 as first annual premium. 

          It was stated that the complainant received the policy bond from Service Provider’s Mumbai Office on 10.02.2018 with liberty to cancel it within Free Look Period.  On 17.02.2018, the complainant narrated several objections and on 20.02.2018, returned the policy bond by speed post stating that he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of said policy and requested for cancellation and refund the first premium amount of Rs. 49,922/- as it was within Free Look Period.

          It was stated that instead of cancelling the policy, the service provider appointed Mr. Nagendra Pal Singh, Asstt. Manager as in-charge of grievance Redressal Team.  The complainant was asked to submit documents to service provider’s Delhi Branch vide communication dated 26.02.2018.  The complainant submitted the required documents at Delhi Branch on 07.03.2018, but the service provider did not take any step to cancel the policy.

          The complainant sent a notice as reminder on 06.04.2018 for refund of premium amount of Rs. 49,922/-, but no response was received.

          It was stated that Oriental Bank of Commerce (OBC) by its communication dated 18.04.2018 informed the complainant for confirmation about mandate given by him to pay annual premium to service provider from his saving bank account with the bank.  On 20.04.2018, the complainant requested the service provider to cancel the said mandate, but no response was received.  Hence, the complainant requested Oriental Bank of Commerce to ignore said mandate.  The complainant tried to contact the service provider for refund of first premium and for cancellation of bank mandate in future, but nothing was done.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for          (a) refund of first premium of Rs.49,922/- with interest;                     (b) cancellation of policy no. 22459513 and bank mandate for future payment of annual premium; (c) compensation on account of mental pain and agony and (d) Rs. 500/- towards cost of litigation.      

          The complainant has annexed copy of premium certificate from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, OBC Bank Mandate for future annual premium, communication dated 17.02.2018, notice dated 19.02.2018, communication of OP dated 26.02.2018, reply dated 07.03.2018, reminder dated 06.04.2018, request to cancel bank mandate dated 20.04.2018 and envelope in which policy document was received on 10.02.2018 with the complaint.    

3.       Notice was served upon OP, thereafter the claim of the complainant was processed.  On 20.03.2019, the complainant informed that he had received the refund as per clause (a) of the prayer clause, but wanted to proceed with clause (b), clause (c) and clause (d) of the prayer clause.

4.       Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP, where they have stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a “Consumer Dispute” under the Act as there was no unfair trade practice adopted by them. 

It was stated that upon receipt of duly filled proposal form alongwith initial premium, OP issued policy bearing no. 22459513 on 30.01.2018 for a term of 11 years and coverage term of 11 years.  The welcome letter clearly stated that in case the complainant disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same and as per Clause 4.1, in case of cancellation of the policy within Free Look Period, the policyholder was entitled to claim the refund of the premium amount after deduction of necessary expenses. 

It was admitted that the complainant requested for cancellation of policy within Free Look Period.  OP informed the complainant vide their letter dated 22.05.2018 that cancellation request of the complainant has been accepted and requested the complainant to submit the requisite documents for processing the cancellation and refund of the amount. 

OP, upon receipt of the summon and after discussing with the complainant, issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 49,922/- dated 17.09.2018 in favour of the complainant, but he did not encash the same for reasons best known to him.  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.       In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

          In defence, OP have examined Shri Rajeev Sharma, Senior Manager-Legal, who have deposed on oath and narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.  He has got exhibited copy of proposal form alongwith terms and conditions (Ex.OP-1 colly.), letter dated 22.02.2018, 26.02.2018, 08.05.2018, 22.05.2018 (Ex.OP-2 to OP-5) and copy of cheque (Ex.OP-6).

5.       We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. The request for cancellation is an admitted fact.  The complainant had exercised his option of cancellation within the Free Look period and the same was communicated to OP on 19.02.2018, however, OP did not process the claim.  It was only after the filing of the present complaint the premium of Rs. 49,922/- was refunded on 17.09.2018 as per the written statement of OP.

          Delay in processing of the claim and depriving the complainant from the rightful enjoyment of his money definitely amounts to deficiency in services, which has not only caused mental agony and harassment, but has constrained the complainant to file the present complaint.  Therefore, we direct OP to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment which includes the cost of litigation.  This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                             Member    

 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

           President