Haryana

Karnal

CC/387/2020

Ravi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Desh Raj Sharma

05 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 387 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.25.09.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:05.04.2024

 

Ravi son of Shri Gessa Ram son of Shri Asha Ram, resident of village Kalampura Sirsi, District Karnal.

 

                                                                       …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. PNB Metlife  India Insurance Company Limited, registered office at 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangaloru-560004, through its Manager.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Division office situated at SCO no.223, second floor, Sector-12, opposite mini secretariat, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

       

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Des Raj Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the father of complainant namely Gessa Ram had purchased an insurance policy bearing no.21642377 commenced from 31.07.2015 of Rs.5,00,000/-. Name of plan is Metlife Endowment Saving Plan and the terms of the policy is 10 years and the premium amount is Rs.4166.67. Complainant is the nominee in the said policy. The father of complainant paid the premium regularly till November 2018. On 28.11.2018, father of complainant had expired suddenly as he suffered a paralytic attack. After the death of his father, complainant being nominee moved an application to the OPs with the request to pass the death claim of his father but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On 21.06.2020, complainant again moved a written application to OPs for getting the death claim of his father but till date OPs neither make the payment of claim amount nor given any reason for not releasing the claim. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.07.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never filed any death claim in regards to the policy in question before the OPs. It is further pleaded that Shri Gessa Ram has submitted a proposal form for the purchase of the PNB Metlife Endowment Saving Plan, the said proposal was accepted by the OP on the information provided by the life assured and consequently a policy was issued wherein the sum assured was Rs.4,85,000/-, policy term was 10 years, premium paying term was also of 10 years, annual premium was Rs.50,000/- and mode of payment of premium was monthly  hence policy premium was Rs.4239/-. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is premature and has only been filed by the complainant to harass and humiliate the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

 4.            Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of application dated 22.06.2020 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 21.07.2020 Ex.C3, receipts Ex.C4, registered AD Ex.C5, premium receipt dated 10.7.2017 Ex.C6, premium receipts from 1.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 09.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Arijit Basu, Senior Manager Ex.OP1/A, power of attorney Ex.OP1, copy of proposal form and documents Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 05.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that father of complainant during his life time had obtained an insurance policy named as the PNB Metlife Endowment Saving Plan. The father of complainant paid the premium amount regularly till his death. The life assured died on 28.011.2018 due to paralysis and after the death of his father, complainant being nominee lodged the claim with the OPs but OPs did not settle the claim of complainant till date and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is premature as the complainant never filed any death claim in regards to the policy in question before the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The complainant has alleged that on 28.11.2018, his father namely Gessa Ram had expired and after the death of his father, he moved an application to the OPs for settlement of the death claim of his father. On the other hand, OPs have alleged that no claim has been submitted by the complainant. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove his case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that after the death of his father, complainant had moved applications in the year 2018 as alleged in the complaint. If the complainant had applied for the claim with the OPs and supplied the required documents, he would have placed on the file the copy of said application. Further, complainant has relied upon the application Ex.C2 dated 22.06.2020 but in the said application complainant has requested to the OPs only for supplying the policy bond and not for settlement of the death claim. Hence it has been proved on record that complainant has not submitted the claim form alongwith relevant documents with the OPs. Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable at this stage.

11.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim form alongwith requisite documents as required by the OPs and on receipt of the same, OPs are hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 05.04.2024               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member