DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/30

Date of Institution : 11.01.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 03.08.2022

Sukhwant Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh Age 64 years Resident of H. No. 246, Gali No. 3, Sant Avenue, GT Road, Amritsar, Punjab-143001. …Complainant

Versus

PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person having its branch at 4th Floor, Eminent Mall, Mall Road, Amritsar, Punjab-143001. 

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 11 and 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date

Present: None for the complainant. 

Sh. Vikas Verma Adv counsel for opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the opposite party through its officer approached the complainant and persuaded him to get an insurance policy from opposite party and complainant opted to obtain a non ulip life insurance policy from the opposite party and paid Rs. 1,00,000.- by cheque dated 28.1.2016 for application No. 210076264. But despite receiving the policy premium from the complainant the opposite party has failed to delivery the original policy documents to the complainant. The complainant made several complaint regarding non delivery of original policy but to no effect. The opposite party assured the complainant that the policy documents will deliver to your residential address within 30 days but they failed to deliver the policy documents to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to immediately issue original policy documents to the complainant without any further delay.       

2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension.

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of legal expenses.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complainant filed the present complaint without any documentary evidence. The policy No. 21803103 was issued to the complainant on 12.2.2016 and policy documents were also dispatched to the complainant at the address provided in proposal form on 12.2.2016 through Bluedart courier and the POD number is 40773454466 and same was duly served upon the complainant on 22.2.2016. Further, if the complainant has not received the policy documents he can approach the respondent company for issuance of Duplicate policy documents but no such formal request was ever made by the complainant, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  

4. On merits, the opposite party submitted the same submissions as mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, opposite party lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of complaint moved to the opposite party Ex.C-2, copy of bank pass book Ex.C-3, affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajeev Sharma Senior Manager Legal Ex.OP-1, copy of policy documents Ex.OP-2, copy of first premium receipt Ex.OP-3, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP-4, copy of policy preamble Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.  

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party.

8. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased life insurance policy from the opposite party and paid the premium of the same. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint that the despite receiving of premium the opposite party not supplied the original policy alongwith policy documents to the complainant. It is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant requested many times to the officials of the opposite party to supply the original policy alongwith policy documents to the complainant and they assured the complainant that the policy documents will be delivered to the complainant at his residential address within 30 days but even then they failed to deliver the policy documents to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

9. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant the policy No. 21803103 was issued to the complainant on 12.2.2016 and policy documents were also dispatched to the complainant at the address provided in proposal form on 12.2.2016 through Bluedart courier and the POD number is 40773454466 and same was duly served upon the complainant on 22.2.2016. He further argued that if the complainant has not received the policy documents he can approach the respondent company for issuance of Duplicate policy documents but no such formal request was ever made by the complainant, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  

10. The opposite party mentioned in their written version that they have dispatched the original policy alongwith policy documents to the complainant on 12.2.2016 through Bluedart courier and POD number is also mentioned in the written version but they have failed to file any courier receipt or POD receipt on the file to prove their stand. They further mentioned in the written version that if the complainant has not received the policy documents then he can approach the opposite party for duplicate policy alongwith documents but complainant never approached the opposite party in this regard. But from the copy of letter dated 5.5.2016 it is proved on the file that the complainant approached the opposite party and moved an application to the Manager, PNB Metlife Insurance Company, Mall Road, Amritsar that he has purchased one policy from the insurance company in January 2016 but the complainant has not received the insurance policy even after lapse of about three months and also requested to issue the policy at his home address. In this application the address of the complainant is also mentioned. This application is duly received by the opposite party which fact is proved from the stamp of the opposite party mentioned on this application. In this way, the opposite party not issued the original policy to the complainant alongwith policy documents as per prescribed period even on the request of complainant dated 5.5.2016, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. 

11. In view of the above discussion, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to issue duplicate policy alongwith policy documents to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 3,300/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,200/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        3rd Day of August 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member