Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/315/2023

MANOJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JATIN KHULLAR & ROHIT KHULLAR

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/315/2023
Date of Institution	:	23/06/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/06/2024

Manoj Kumar age 51 years S/o Sh. Baldev Raj earlier residing at House No.3288, Sector 35/D, Chandigarh and presently residing at H.No.HL 38, Phase 7, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Registered office: Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27 MG Road, Banglore-560001 through its Managing Director.

2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. regional office at SCO No.68 & 69, 2nd Floor, Bridge Market, Sector 17/B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager-160017.

3. Shanti Devi, Agent (Agency Code 99039504) PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. regional office at SCO No.68 & 69, 2nd Floor, Bridge Market, Sector 17/B, Chandigarh-160017.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jatin Khullar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Aryavart Chaudhary, Advocate for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Manoj Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 4.5.2018, complainant received a call from the representative of OP-1 namely Shiv Kumar, intimating that OP-1 has launched a very good insurance and investment saving plan for the savings of complainant.  On 6.5.2018, representative/agent (OP-3) of OPs 1 & 2 came to the house of the complainant and explained the description of the policy and allured him to purchase the same on payment of premium of ₹30,000/- per year for three years and further assured that on payment of the said premium for three years, complainant would get basic sum assured of ₹2,54,273/- after five years.  It was also assured by OP-3 that the complainant would get 10 times the sum assured risk cover also.  On being allured with the assurances given by OP-3, complainant purchased the policy by paying first premium of ₹30,000/- on 11.5.2018 through cheque. Thereafter the complainant had further paid two premiums of above mentioned policy in the year 2019 and 2020 and thereby paid premium of the policy continuously for three years i.e. from 2018 to 2020 vide premium paid certificates (Annexure C-2 to C-4). On receiving the policy (Annexure C-5) namely “PNB MetLife Endowment Savings Plan Plus” (hereinafter referred to as “subject policy”) on 30.5.2018 from the office of OPs, complainant was shocked to read the policy bond as even features of the subject policy, as explained by OP-3 were totally different.  Immediately on the next day i.e. 31.5.2018, complainant approached the office of OPs and met OP-3 and told her about the features mentioned in the policy and she requested him to continue with the policy for three years as on the completion of three years, complainant would get an amount of ₹2,54,279/- after five years.  On 2.6.2023, i.e. on completion of five years period, complainant approached the office of OPs and submitted the documents and requested to release the aforesaid maturity amount, but, they failed to do so. In this manner, the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs 1 & 2 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, concealment of facts and estoppel. However, it is alleged that the complainant was well informed about the free look provision according to which insured can apply for cancellation of policy by giving signed written notice to the company within 15 days from the date of receiving the policy.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the OP on 2.6.2023 by alleging that the subject policy has been mis-sold and his request for cancellation was declined since the customer did not approach during the FLC period.  It is also alleged that the complainant has only paid three premiums out of total 10 premiums.  On merits, answering OPs have not disputed the fact that the complainant has paid total premium to the tune of ₹90,000/- for three years, but, alleged that as the complainant has not approached them for cancellation of the subject policy within the free look period, his request was declined.  It is further alleged that the complainant has only paid three premiums out of total 10 premiums and stopped paying thereafter. The facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP-3 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 9.8.2023.
4. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.;
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject policy and has paid total premium to the tune of ₹90,000/- i.e. ₹30,000/- annually for three years i.e. from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2021, as is also evident from the premium paid certificates (Annexure C-2 to C-4), the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the complainant was required to pay only three annual premiums to get an amount of ₹2,54,279/- towards purchase of the subject policy and the OPs are unjustified in rejecting the request/ claim of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if the complainant was required to pay premium for 10 years and the maturity date was 15.2.2028, on which date complainant was entitled to get an amount of ₹2,54,279/- and also if the complainant has failed to apply for cancellation of the subject policy within the free look period, as per terms and conditions of the subject policy and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. In the backdrop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, one thing is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the terms and conditions of the subject policy schedule (Annexure C-5) and the same is required to be scanned carefully for determining the real controversy between the parties.
   3. Perusal of the Annexure C-5 clearly indicates that the same was issued to the complainant by the OPs and as per policy and contract details, complainant was required to pay annual premium to the tune of ₹29,999.96 by way of 10 installments and the maturity date of the policy was 15.5.2028 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

4. As per the defence of OPs, free look period for cancellation of the subject policy was 15 days and as the complainant has failed to apply for cancellation within the said period, he is not entitled to any relief.
5. However, perusal of Annexure C-X, annexed with the rejoinder filed by the complainant, clearly indicates that the complainant had approached OPs 1 & 2 through written application for cancellation of the subject policy by alleging that the same has been mis-sold to him and requested for cancellation on 31.5.2018.
6. As it is clear from the subject policy (Annexure C-5) that the same is dated 22.5.2018 and the complainant had applied for cancellation of the same on 31.5.2018, i.e. within 15 days even from the date of issuance of subject policy, it is clear that the complainant has applied for cancellation of the subject policy well within the free look period provided by the OPs themselves. 
7. Although after making aforesaid request, OPs had received two further premiums to the tune of ₹30,000/- each from the complainant, but, as the complainant has explained that the said payment was made by him only on the assurance given by OP-3, who was agent of OPs 1 & 2, and further OPs have concealed the factum of application filed by the complainant for the cancellation of the subject policy within the free look period and till date OPs have not even refunded the said premium amount to the tune of ₹90,000/- to the complainant, it is safe to hold that the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 23.6.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/06/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member