Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 47.
Instituted on : 29.01.2015.
Decided on : 27.07.2017.
Karan Singh Dahiya R/o H.No.1060/23, D.L.F Colony, Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited No.5 Brigade Seshmahal Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
- Manager, Axis Bank, Near Ashoka Takiz, Rohtak(Agent of opposite party No.1 and policy was done by Employee of Axis Bank namely Mr. Sunny Employee code 104/288 in Rohtak).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Ms. Loveleen Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant Sh. Karan Singh Dahiya was insured from PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. under policy namely Met Smart Plus under policy bearing number 20070000. It is averred that complainant was informed by the opposite party agent that he had to pay a premium of Rs.30000/- for three years and after the first three installments, the complainant would be entitled to withdraw the deposited amount with interest. It is averred that complainant had paid three installments of Rs.30000/- as assured by agent of opposite party. It is averred that due to some family problems he was not able to pay the fourth installment so he wrote the opposite party on 08.09.2012. Complainant had informed the opposite party that he want to continue his policy and the opposite party sent a letter to complainant on 15.09.2012 that your cover continuance process has been processed. Complainant asked the official of opposite party on 08.09.2012 that how much money he can draw against his policy but the opposite party never try to respond the request of the complainant. It is averred that opposite party had discontinued the policy of the complainant according to their convenience and not followed the terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that the opposite party had terminated and forclosed the policy illegally to harass the complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make payment of Rs.90000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party duly responded the complainant and on receiving the letter by the opposite party on 14.09.2015, the opposite party activated the letter cover continuation option. It is further stated that since the surrender value had become less than the annualized premium, the policy was foreclosed on 31.03.2013. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the matter if any is between complainant and opposite party No.1 and answering opposite party has nothing to do with the same. It is averred that there is no role of the answering opposite party in alleged termination and discontinuance of policy. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that as per policy document Ex.R1, complainant Karan Singh was insured with the opposite party under Met Smart Plus policy and the amount of premium is Rs.30000/- It is also not disputed that complainant had paid the three installments of Rs.30000/- each. It is also observed that after three years complainant was unable to pay the premium amount so the complainant vide his letter Ex.C4 had requested the opposite party that he want to continue the policy and also to tell the value of policy. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the policy of the complainant was foreclosed by the opposite party against the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per terms and conditions of the policy, after the first three policy years, the Surrender value payable on surrender is equal to the Fund value in the Unit account less the surrender charge as mentioned in clause 11(D). In this regard we have placed reliance upon the document Ex.R1 i.e. page no.2 of ledger prepared on 16.07.2009 i.e. at the time of proposal for the policy, as per which the fund value is Rs.66261/-. But the complainant vide his letter dated 08.09.2012 had requested the opposite party to tell the current fund value which was not disclosed and thereafter the policy was foreclosed on 31.03.2013 without showing the current fund value. In our view it would be suffice to pay 75% of total premium paid(Rs.90000/-).
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party No.1 shall pay an amount of Rs.67500/-(Rupees sixty seven thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.29.01.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
