CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.218/2019

SUBASH CHANDRA GHOSH

S/O. LATE T P GHOSH

E-798, II FLOOR,

CHITTARANJAN PARK, KALKAJI,

NEW DELHI-110019                                                                  ....COMPLAINANT

Vs.

PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.

FORMERLY KNOWN AS

METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

REGISTERED OFFICE: UNIT NO. 701, 702 & 703,

M.G. ROAD, BANGLORE-560001 .

HAVING ITS OPERATIONAL BRANCH OFFICE AT:

A-13/001, 3^rd FLOOR, SYNERGY TOWERS,

SECTOR-62, NOIDA,

LANDMARK-NEXT TO J.P. INSTITUTE

DISTRICT-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR.

ALSO AT

4-B/T-A/L-1, 7^th FLOOR, INSTITUTIONAL,

PLOT NO. A-41, SECTOR-62, NOIDA-201301,

DISTRICT-GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR                                                       .…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-11.09.2019

            Date of Order-03.05.2024

             O R D E R

MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President

Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.804 277 as per annexure B till 10.05.2019; Rs.3,00,000 for mental agony and harassment interest at the rate of 8.5% on the unpaid amount beyond 10.05.2019 on the claimed amount of Rs.804 277/- and cost of litigation.

1. It is stated by the complainant that he is retired engineer and senior      citizen and was approached by one of the agents of the OP in or around last week of August 2017 who offered investment opportunities which had higher returns than the fixed deposit rates offered by the nationalised banks and was further told that the income from the interest was tax free apart from various other incentives in the nature of Commission upon completion of the duration of the investment of 5 and 10 years.

2. It is stated that one Ms. Renu Sharma came to the residence of the complainant offering various policies and plans which according to her were most beneficial to the complainant. She offered a plan named PNB MetLife Immediate Annuity Plan-117NO95V02. She represented herself to be a direct employee of the OP and that her immediate senior was the Co- branch manager named one Sh.Manoj Kumar.

3. It was represented to the complainant that the investment in the policies were akin to fixed deposit in banks where apart from payment of periodical interest, the principal amount is refunded upon expiry of the tenure of the policy which ranged from 05/10/15 years. The only difference being that FDR's could be broken before expiry of term however the policy cannot be broken mid-term and shall continue till the completion of the term.

4. It was also represented to the complainant that the insurer would have the option of withdrawing from the scheme after 5 years even if the plan is for 5 years/10 years/15 years meaning there by that the lock-in period of the investment is only 5 years. After completion of 5 years or the term, whichever is before, the principal of the invested amount would be refunded to the insurer. In the event of death of the insurer before the period off lock-in, The legal heirs would continue to receive the interest component for the term and they shall have the similar power of withdrawal of the principal investment beyond the lock-in period of 5 years.

5. It was also stated that in addition to the annuity interest, the OP would pay the complainant a special incentive as commission upto 9.99% on total investment amount. It is annexed as Annexure 3 which would be paid to the complainant by way of lump sum after a period of 5 years.

6. It is further stated that based on the aforesaid representation complainant agreed to purchase/invest in the stand alone lump sum plan for an investment amount of Rs.6,75,000/- under which the complainant was informed that he would quarterly receive instalment of Rs.14,241/- and the term of the plan would be for 10 years. Signatures of the complainant were obtained on the application form which the agent promised to fill properly at her end and she collected photocopy of the passport and pan card for putting in the necessary details.

7. Complainant received a copy of the immediate annuity plan dated 09.09.2017 from the OP informing that the policy has been accepted from 04.09.2017 and the commencement date was 30.08.2017 and the first payment would be made on 30.11.2017 for an amount of Rs.13,926/- and every quarter thereafter. The representation at the time of application was in slight violation with the policy issued.

8. The complainant after the promised date of payment i.e 30.11. 2017 received the payment of Rs.13,926/-. The receipt of this payment created a comfort in the mind of the complainant with regard to the nature of investments as also the quality of representations made by the agent of the OP.

9. It is further stated that the representative namely Ms. Renu Sharma again approached the complainant for further investments to be made in the same plan indicating that the cheques of quarterly interest payment can be made directly into the bank account of the insurer. Based on the representations made by the OP, complainant made substantial investments which he would not have otherwise made had there be no misrepresentation by the agent of the OP.

10. Complainant took 7 such policies and the total investment came to Rs.92,75,000/-. The complainant being a retired person having attained the age of more than 65 years in 2017 had opted for 5/10 years of the immediate annuity plan with quarterly payment of interest with the intent of getting back his original investment after completion of the tenure of the plan to meet his daily and medical expenses apart from daughter’s higher education and her marriage.

11. Based on the quarterly interest amount received against the investments made, the complainant made further investment in the immediate annuity plan sometime in the beginning of January 2019. The investment was of Rs.14,00,000/- in which the assured quarterly interest was Rs.29,969/-.

12. Within 2 to 3 days after issuance of the latest policy in 2019, complainant received a random call inquiring as to the representations made with respect to the policies. During this conversation, the complainant was informed that the investment in the plan taken by the complainant is annuity plan in which the money invested is not refunded and the insurance company would continue to pay the interest component assured amount quarterly or any other agreed distribution during his lifetime and there was no provision in the annuity plan for returning/refunding of the principal amount invested.

13. On the very next day, the complainant got in touch with the branch manager who is the chief branch manager and the Co-manager and communicated the information received. They were surprised to hear such information and visited the complainant’s residence on 15.01.2019 along with the coordinator Ms. Renu Sharma since the total investment made was Rs.92,75,000/- + Rs.14.0 lacs (under the free look period).

14. It is stated that after detailed discussion on the investments, it was realised that serious injustice has been carried out and accepted that illegal trade practice has been adopted from day one. The officials informed the complainant that original investment amount cannot be returned after 5/10 years as per terms of the policy but were unable to explain why and where same were mentioned. They informed the complainant that he was not correctly informed by Ms. Renu Sharma however, it was promised that further investigation shall be carried out.

15. Complainant also informed the branch managers that PNB MetLife representative has also offered up to 9.99% Commission on investment amount and that she had given all original Commission letters duly signed by concerned officer on original PNB MetLife letterhead and stamp. It was informed to the complainant that all Commission letters are fake, forged, fabricated and not a part of any annuity policy.

16. It is further stated that very next day Ms. Renu Sharma visited the complainants and took back all original Commission letters after promising that she would be returning them after scanning but she did not return those letters. Reference is made to Annexure 5 in this regard.

17. It is further alleged by the complainant that on account of illegal trade practice OP management fired Ms. Renu Sharma and dismissed her from job as per the advice of the branch manager which is the clear cut acceptance by OP of very serious injustice/ illegal trade practice on senior citizen as the complainant. Reference is made to Annexure 1 page 27.

18. It is stated that accepting the unlawful trade practice and injustice on the complainant, Mr. Mohit and Mr. Manoj Kumar informed the complainant that he was allowed to cancel all policies if he wishes and based on his request of cancellation all investment amount would be refunded, reimbursed and interest shall be continued to be paid till the date of reimbursement of original investment. It was told to him that reimbursement process will take 30 to 45 days time.

19. Complainant was also informed that principal amount minus the annual interest is only to be paid as per their policy the complainant immediately connected to the OP’s grievance cell for confirmation and send an email dated 24.01.2019 seeking confirmation as to whether the original investment after 5/10 years would be refunded or not and if the principal amount was not refundable, complainant would cancel the policy, more particularly the latest policy dated 10.01.2019 which was in the free look period.

20. Complainant immediately surrendered the last policy under the free look period and received the investment amount within this stipulated time. Complainant submitted this complaint along with this cancellation letter for cancelling all the policies and at that time it was verbally assured that interest of the immediate annuity plan would be paid without reduction and further it was also informed that the total investment amount of Rs.92.7 lakhs would be refunded within 30 to 45 days from the date of application apart from interest as per the annuity plans and all accumulated interest shall be paid upto the date of the transferred amount.

21. OP vide email dated 08.04.2019 informed the complainant that the company would be refunding the total premium excluding the amount already paid in the form of annuities against this policies. It is stated that despite having committed fraud and having agreed to cancel the policies and refund the total premium received towards it, as an exception OP refused to pay any interest on the invested amount which he would have otherwise generated had he continued the fixed deposit maintained with his bank.

22. Complainant approached insurance Ombudsman and submitted his representation and claim on 03.06.2019 but it was informed that the matter does not fall within the purview of Ombudsman and that he was free to take up his grievance with any other court or forum.

23. It is the allegation of the complaint that he is entitled to be paid in accordance with the rates of interest as was offered by the OP at the time of making of the investment. The interest calculation is annexed as annexure B.  It is stated that the complainant was deliberately sold this policy for 33 years knowing that the annuitant would not get back investment money after 5 to 10 years.

24. In the reply, OP has set up territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary objection. In this regard OP, has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Dehradun in LIC vs harish Chandra Joshi FA number 88/2009.

25. It is stated that complainant is seeking alleged unpaid interest amount with interest as per his own whimsical calculations without any documentary proof on record. It is stated that all contract of insurance policies obtained by the complainant were terminated at his request and the amount was refunded as per the terms and conditions of the policy on request of the complainant therefore, there is no further remaining liability on the part of the OP.

26.  It is stated that the whole case of the complainant is based on whimsical calculations that had the complainant continued his funds in fixed deposit instead of obtaining subject policies, he would have received the interest. It is stated that signatures on the proposal form had not been disputed by the complainant and moreover policy documents for each policy was received in timely manner by the complainant.  It is stated that policy documents contain terms and conditions with the policy in explicit manner which constitute a duly entered contract between insurance company and complainants. The complainant has chosen to retain the policies during the free look period therefore, the company is not liable to pay any amount or any interest beyond the terms and conditions with the policy.

27. It is stated that complainant being educated and prudent individual had purchased seven insurance policies making payment of Rs.90,96, 266/- within a short span of one year from August 2017 till September 2018 by intentionally opting for insurance policies under MetLife Immediate Annuity New Plan with different options in each policy as per his own sweet will by signing the process proposal forms for such policy. It is stated that the complaint of the complainant is nothing but a concocted story in order to gain undue advantage from being a company of high repute.

28. It is stated that the OP had kept the complainant aware about the terms and conditions of the policy. Reliance has been placed by the OP on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Mohanlal Benal vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd RP no. 2870/2012 decided on 16.10. 2012 and Harish Kumar Chadha vs Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd decided on 07.10.2013 in RP no. 3271/2013.

29. OP further states that the complaint is bad for misjoinder as the agent who sold the policy has not been made a party to the said case and the facts pertaining to the agent are denied for want of knowledge since an agent who is licensed with IRDA functions independently of an insurance company and therefore, the OP cannot be held liable for any alleged wrongful act of such agent. It is stated that OP does not have any administrative control over the insurance agent.

30. It is further stated that it is a settled principle of law that at the time of filling up of the proposal form, the agent acts as agent of insured and not of insurance company. It is stated that complainant has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint and has approached the forum with unclean hands and therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

31. It is stated that complainant has failed to set up a nexus between the damages claimed in the present complaint and the damages suffered by him and the damages claimed are arbitrary, without any basis and is an abuse of the process of law.

32. It is stated that the complainant approached OP through letter dated 30.01.2019 raising allegations as to mis- selling of subject policies and seeking cancellation of the policies with refund and in response the OP sent an email dated 23.03.2019 requesting the complainant to submit documents. Thereafter complainant again approached the OP through mail dated 26.09.2019 seeking bifurcation of annuity paid and cancellation amount paid to him with respect to policy number 22304488 only. In response, the OP had sent an email dated 10.10.2019 providing the details of annuity paid hence there is no dereliction on the part of the OP . Copy of the emails are annexed as Annexures 18 and 19.

33. It is further stated that in pursuance of the request of the complainant OP cancelled all the subject policies as a gesture of goodwill on exceptional ground and paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy on 29.04.2019 therefore, there is no acceptance of any injustice or illegal trade practice on anyone OP.

34.  This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and  have heard the oral arguments. Evidence affidavits as well as written arguments of both the parties are on record. It is seen that the main grievance of the complainant is against the agent of OP 1 who  has stated to have mis-sold the policies to the complainant but she  has not made the agent a party to the present case. It is also seen that OP has defended it's case by stating that it has nothing to do with the agent who has mis-sold the policies to the complainant and that they are independent agents appointed by and approved by IRDA. In this regard OP has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sitaram vs Santanu Prasad AIR 1966 SC 1697. It is also seen that the complainant has purchased the policies one after the other within a span of one year and that the complainant is an educated man. In this regard OP has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. vs M/s Aggarwal Steel 2010(1) SC 33;  Kishore Chand Kant Rathore vs Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. passed by Hon’ble NCDRC in RP number 3390/2013 decided on 21 052014; Srikanth Muralidhar Apte vs Life Insurance Corporation of India passed by Hon’ble NCDRC RP number 634/2012 decided on 02052013; Prema vs LIC IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC).

35. This Commission is of the view that the complainant is an educated and aware person and to now contend that only one party to the contract was at fault is neither appreciable not acceptable. It is also seen that on coming to know of the mis- selling of the policies OP has refunded the amount of the policies to the complainant. It is also observed that neither the complainant nor the OP has mentioned the amount refunded to the complainant and the complainant in his prayer is seeking the interest which he claims to have lost as this money was not parked in FDR’s in a bank.

36. This Commission is of the view that the complainant has not been able to establish his case as the complainant is an educated person who has purchased 7 policies at different point of time from OP after receiving those policies along with its terms and conditions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

It is therefore, upon the complainant to initially discharge its onus to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  This Commission has gone through the pleadings and documents filed by the complainant and find that complainant has not been able to discharge this onus. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits.

Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.