Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/604/2020

Devinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

05 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/604/2020
Date of Institution	:	21/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	05/12/2023

Devinder Kumar son of late Sh. Khem Chand, aged about 66 years, resident of House No.317, Phase-1, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.68-69, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office : Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, MG Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	None for OPs

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Devinder Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is having his saving/pension bank account with Punjab National Bank, Sector 26 Branch, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “subject bank”).  The complainant, being senior citizen and retired from Govt. department, has been suffering from various health problems and has also got three major surgeries from Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and at present he and his family members are dependent upon his pension since he is not having any other source of income.  In the month of December, 2019, when the complainant visited the subject bank for the purpose of investment of his hard earned money in fixed deposit, he met the branch agent, Gagandeep Singh. The complainant is matriculate and is not able to fill the form in English, by his own.  The aforesaid Gagandeep Singh asked the complainant to provide PAN card and Aadhar card before investing the amount in fixed deposit and complainant remained in the branch till 2 – 2.30 hours.  However, in the last week of January when he visited the subject bank for pension, he came to know from entry in the passbook (Annexure C-1) that an amount of ₹1,00,354/- has been deducted from his account and when he enquired about the said entry, he was informed that the aforesaid amount has been paid to the OPs for purchase of insurance policy. The complainant was shocked to know that instead of investing the aforesaid amount in the fixed deposit, the agent of the subject bank had invested the same in the policy of the OPs regarding which complainant was never interested.  The complainant approached the official of OP-1 who assured that the refund will be initiated and completed within two weeks. When the complainant did not receive any response from the OPs, he submitted written letter dated 29.2.2020 (Annexure C-2) to OP-1 with the request to cancel the policy and refund the amount and vide letter dated 4.3.2020 (Annexure C-3), OPs assured that the issue will be resolved.  However, when nothing has been done by the OPs, complainant again approached the OPs by writing letters 14.3.2020 and 15.3.2020 (Annexure C-4 & C-5), but, still nothing has been done by the OPs.  Thereafter the complainant vide letters dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure C-6) and 29.9.2020 (Annexure C-7) approached the Banking Lokpal, Reserve Bank of India, Chandigarh with the request to direct the OPs to cancel the policy and refund the amount, but, with no success. In this manner, OPs have misled the complainant and invested his amount in their policy instead of fixed deposit, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties.  However, it is alleged that the complainant had invested the aforesaid amount in the policy by filling the requisite form, of his own, and by choosing a period of five years for the auto deduction from his account to pay the premium and has filed the present false complaint. It is denied that the complainant had come to invest the amount in the fixed deposit, rather he himself has opted to invest the same in the subject policy.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.  However, as OPs failed to file evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunity, therefore, vide order dated 19.4.2023 of this Commission, opportunity to file the same was closed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the instant consumer complaint, OPs filed an application disclosing the details of refund status with the averments that on the directions of learned Banking Ombudsman, OPs have refunded the amounts of ₹1,00,000/- and ₹3,175/- to the complainant on 15.3.2021 and 17.3.2021 respectively and the consumer complaint deserves dismissal.   The said application was not replied by the complainant.
   2. By way of the instant consumer complaint, complainant had sought the refund of the amount of ₹1,00,354/-  i.e. the premium amount having been deposited by him with the OPs and as it has come on record that during the pendency of the consumer complaint i.e. on 15.3.2021 and 17.3.2021, OPs have already refunded total amount of ₹1,03,175/- to the complainant, one thing is clear that the complainant is not entitled for the relief of refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹1,00,354/- since said prayer already stood satisfied.
   3. However, the complainant is still resisting his claim against the OPs on the ground that since the aforesaid amount was not refunded by the OPs when he approached them several times and rather he was compelled to file the present consumer complaint as well as approach the Banking Lokpal/Banking Ombudsman, he is entitled to compensation for the mental and physical harassment undergone by him as well as litigation expenses. To our mind, to that extent, there is merit in the aforesaid prayer of the complainant, especially when it has come on record that the OPs had refunded the aforesaid amount to the complainant only after a few months of the filing of the instant complaint with this Commission.  Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed partly. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
2. to pay ₹3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amount, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 05/12/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member