Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/37/2016

Kuldip Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

H.P.S. Kochhar Adv.

15 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	37 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	13.01.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	15.05.2017

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Kuldip Kaur aged 71 years d/o Hazara Singh, R/o House No.774, Sector 43-A Chandigarh

 

2]  Shagun Arora, aged 20 years, d/o Sanjay Arora, R/o House No.774, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Prit Pal Kaur aged 55 years d/o Kartar Singh, R/o House NO.774, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

 

 

             …..Complainants

VERSUS

 

1]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.36, 1^st Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula, Haryana through its Agency Manager.

 

2]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: “Brigade Seshamahal”, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, 560004 through its Chief Manager.

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.H.P.S.Kochhar, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Umesh Kumar, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH,  MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainants, as per assurance of Mr.Amar Kumar, agent of the OPs, took six numbers of one time premium insurance policies, as detailed in Para No.3 of the complaint by paying the requisite premiums.  It is averred that when the policies were delivered at the address of complainants, at that very time immediately a person from the OPs came and asked for the policies back with the plea that some corrections have to be made in the policies and the policies should be returned to the complainant after requisite corrections.  Accordingly, the complainants gave all six policies to that person but thereafter none of the policies were returned.  It is averred that when the complainants did not receive the policies for a long period, then on making much persuasion & pressure on the OPs, the complainants were able to get the policies in Aug., 2014 (Ann.C-1 to C-6 colly).  It is stated that after going through the policies, the complainants were shocked to know that five policies were for 15 years term and one policy was for 14 years term, whereas the complainants have opted for one time premium policies.  The matter was taken with the agent with a request to covert the policies into one time policy and even Sh.Anil Sharma, Agency Manager of OPs at Panchkula was requested to either convert all the policies into single premium policies or to refund the amount.  It is also stated that on the false assurance of OPs, the complainant No.3 was forced to pay another Rs.24,000/- to the OPs as premium of next year out of fear that her policy shall lapse and the entire amount forfeited.  The complainants also gave a police complaint (Ann.C-7).   However, the OPs did not convert the policies into one time premium policies despite given assurance. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that all the six policies, as alleged, have been issued in favour of the complainants as has been proposed by them through duly filled-up proposal forms along with premium amount. Thereafter, all the policy terms & conditions were sent to the complainants along with welcome letter stating that in case the complainant do not agree with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same and was entitled for cancellation, however, the complainants refrained from applying for cancellation of the policy within the free look period and it was presumed that the contract of insurance which we had with the complainant was legally concluded.  It is submitted that the complainants are only talking about the refund of the premium and forgetting the insurance part.  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party has also given insurance under the policy and have been providing coverage under the policy.  It is stated that the complainants have failed to make out a prima facie case against the OPs. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainants have also filed rejoinder reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainants have taken six policies (Ann.C-1 to C-6), Met Endowment Plan, Non Linked, Participating Endowment Plan UIN:117NXXXVO1 from PNB Metlife, as per details below:-

 

Name	Policy No.	Commencement date	Term years	Amount paid(Rs.)
Kuldip Kaur	21274785	11.3.2014	15	42500/-
Kuldip Kaur	21270994	05.3.2014	15	48000
Shagun Arora	21294526	29.3.2014	15	48000
Shagun Arora	21309898	9.05.2014	15	37700
Pritpal Kaur	21274404	10.3.2014	15	58500
Pritpal Kaur	21280280	23.3.2014	14	34000
Pritpal Kaur	Paid			24000
			Total	Rs.2,92,700/-

 

7]       The complainants have stated they had agreed to invest in the abovesaid policies on the assurance given by Amar Kumar, Corporate Agent of OPs regarding payment of only one time premium. The policies just after receipt were taken by the OPs through their representative on pretext of some corrections to make therein in the office, but complainants were enable to get back copies of policies in August, 2014 after strenuous efforts/requests and visits to the office of OPs.

 

8]       The complainants only on receipt of copies of policies in August, 2014, came to know that the 5 policies were made for a term of 15 years and one for 14 years with annual premium payable for 15 years/14 years. 

 

9]       They took up the matter with OPs for redressal of their grievance and later wrote to Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh for action against the delinquent corporate agent Amar Kumar and also against Agency Manager Anil Kumar  (Ann.C-7). 

 

10]      The Opposite Parties have not refuted the contentions as raised by the complainants in the complaint.  The OPs have secured the premium for policies by suppressing material facts without disclosing full details about the Terms & Conditions of the policies.  The OPs have not produced any evidence on record nor have produced the affidavit of Amar Kumar, the Corporate Agent, in proof of assertion as to whether the complainants were properly apprised about the true facts with complete details about the policies.

 

11]      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported as 2000 (Law Suit) SC 383 has held:-

“It is not only the duty of the insured but also the duty of the insurance company and its agents to disclose all material facts in their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to both equally.”

 

12]      The Contract based on misrepresentation and suppression of facts is a nullity in the eyes of law and void abinitio.

13]      The complainants have paid the money for the policies in March, 2014 and the lock-in period of three years period has lapsed and the complainants have not got any benefit of dividend or insurance claim from the Opposite Parties.

14]      Keeping into consideration the facts in issue as raised in this complaint, the complaint is hereby allowed with direction to the OPs to pay back the amount of Rs.2,92,700/- to the complainants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization, as well as litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         In case the OPs failed to comply with the order within the given time, OPs shall pay back the amount of Rs.2,92,700/- to the complainants alongwith interest @12% p.a., instead of @6% p.a., from the date of deposit till realization, apart from paying litigation cost.  

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th May, 2017                               Sd/-

                                                                            (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                    

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                           (PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER