Haryana

Karnal

CC/194/2019

Shobha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Sukhan

20 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 194 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.10.04.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:20.05.2022

 

Shobha Rani wife of Shri Pawan Goel, resident of house no.48/394, Vakilpura, Sadar Bazar, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., situated at SCO 223, 2^nd floor, Sector-12, Karnal through its authorized officer.

2.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. situated at Unit no.101, 1^st floor, Techniplex-1, Techniplex Complex Off, Veer Savarkar Flyover, S.V. Road, Gore Gaon (West) Mumbai through its authorized officer.

3.     Priya Gaba & Priya Arya wife of Shri Somesh Arya, resident of house no.50, Ram Nagar, Karnal authorized agency of PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri N.K. Sukhan, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has taken an insurance policy naming PNB Metlife Endowment Saving Plan plus vide policy no.21037144 from OPs no.1 and 2 commencing from 15.03.2013. Complainant has paid premium of Rs.30,000/- per annum as premium for the abovesaid policy. The said policy was issued by the OPs to the complainant for ten years. At the time of selling of the policy, being the agent of OPs no.1 and 2 i.e. OP no.3 calculated the amount after five years, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- alongwith interest. It is further averred that OP no.3 approached the complainant and told about a scheme for investment of money in PNB Metlife Endowment Saving Plan Plus. OP no.3 told the complainant that if he invested Rs.30,000/- per year for 5 years complainant will be getting minimum Rs.2,70,000/- after the end of 5 years. OP no.3 narrated the complainant all this on paper in her own handwriting. It is further averred that complainant confirmed all this from Shri S.K. AGM (now retired) who also assured the complainant for not to be wrorried as this is PNB scheme. On believing of both these employees, complainant invested the hard earned money in the scheme as narrated by Priya Gaba @ Priya Arya. It is clearly told by the complainant to the OP no.3 that her money should not be invested in any floating scheme. Believing all this many more including sister of complainant Raj Bansal also invested the money.

2.             It is further averred that after completion of five years when complainant approached the bank to take her money back complainant was told that she will get Rs.1,95,000/-. Complainant protested and said that complainant was told that she would be getting Rs.2,70,000/- . Complainant was further told that OPs have invested her amount in market based scheme and the rate has lowered down. At the time of investment complainant was never told that the money would be invested in market based scheme. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested for her claim but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly rejected the claim of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.2,70,000/- as full sum assured alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and also to pay compensation for harassment and Rs.33000/-as  litigation costs.

3.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on 13.3.2013, complainant applied for PNB Met Smart Platinum bearing application no.201786790 duly filled, and submitted the proposal form with OP no.1. On 13.03.2013 complainant signed an application declaration stating that she has been clearly explained the policy and has clearly understood the same. On 21.03.2013, the OP no.1 issued policy bearing no.21037144. On 20.08.2018 the complainant through NCH portal filed a complaint from the complainant regarding policy in details. It is further pleaded that on 03.09.2018, OPs sent a letter to the complainant wherein she was informed that the present policy is a low risk policy and hence the return is less. She was further informed that the present policy has been lapsed due to non-payment of renewal premium due on 15.03.2018. It is specifically denied that OP no.3 made a contention that the complainant will receive an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- after a terms of five years. It is further pleaded that on the purported calculation sheet the name of one Brij Bhushan is mentioned and not of the complainant which clearly raise doubt regarding the authenticity of the purported document. It is further specifically denied that complainant told the OP no.3 to not invest money in the floating scheme as she herself has signed the declaration stating that the concerned policy is Unit Link Policy and it is subjected to market risks and hence contention of complainant is devoid of any merit. It is further pleaded that in accordance with clause 6(2) of the IRDA, 2002 are provided the Freelook Period i.e. fifteen days after receiving the policy documents, to review the policy thoroughly and return the policy within fifteen days in case customer decides to cancel the policy. The complainant despite receiving the policy document chooses to retain the same for 5 long years which shows that she was satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that the policy in question is Unit Link Policy and hence the contention of the complainant that she has not opted for Unit Link Policy is devoid of any merit. It is further pleaded that complainant has not paid the renewal premium of the year 2018 due on 15.03.2018 and the policy is moved to premium discountenance mode. OPs vide letter dated 03.09.2018 informed the complainant about the same however no action has been taken by the complainant to renew the policy in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 filed her separate written statement stating therein that OP has duly informed the complainant about each and every terms and conditions regarding the policy, also all the doubts of the complainant was cleared in full detail by the OP. Therefore, the question of misrepresentation by the OP does not arise. It is further pleaded that the document was never given to the complainant by the OP on the other hand it belongs to another customer named Brij Bhusan wherein the OP informed Mr. Brij Bhushan about some other policy plan that was completely different from the policy of the complainant. The complainant has illegally acquired the said paper and is now making a false story using the said document. It is denied that OP informed the complainant that she will receive an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- after a term of five years. It is further pleaded that the OP never gave the purported calculation sheet to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copy of calculation made by OP no.3 Ex.C3, copy of letter dated 21.07.2018 Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant on 01.10.2019 by suffering separate statement.

6.             It is pertinent to mention here that OPs failed to conclude their evidence after availing several opportunities including nine last opportunities. On 18.04.2022 none has put into appearance on behalf of OPs and OPs were proceeded against exparte.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file carefully.

8.             Admittedly, the complainant had purchased insurance policy namely PNB Metlife on 15.03.2013 from the OPs and paid Rs.30,000/- as premium amount.

9.             As per the version of the complainant the policy in question had been issued for the term of ten years and after five years she was entitled to sum of Rs.2,70,000/- alongwith interest. After completion of five years complainant approached the OPs to take her money back, complainant was told that she will get only Rs.1,95,000/- by the OPs. The said amount has also not been paid by the OPs. Moreover, the complainant was/is entitled for Rs.2,70,000/-. Complainant moved an application Ex.C4 dated 21.07.2018 against the OP no.3 before the AGM Main Branch, Punjab National Bank, G.T. Road, Karnal, but no action has been taken by the said AGM against the OP no.3.

10.           The complainant has relied upon the handwritten purporting calculation Ex.C3, which was prepared by OP no.3 and said calculation appears to be is for saving plan. As per the version of the OPs the policy in question was unit link insurance policy (ULIP) which was subject to market risk. The OPs also mentioned in their written version with regard to annexure OP1/1 to OP1/5, but on perusal of the file no such documents had been attached with the written version filed by the OPs no.1 and 2.

11.           To prove her case complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs have not placed on record any document and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,70,000/- alongwith interest, compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity of the amount till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:20.05.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member