| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.63 of 16.7.2016 Decided on: 10.12.2020 Sukhdev Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Sh.Harcharan Singh, resident of House No.45, Street No.23, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly known as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Regd. office: Brigade Seshamahar” 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Managing Director/Director.
- PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly known as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Branch Office:Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Manager.
- Lakhwinder Kaur, Advisor of PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd., wife of Kiranjit Singh, resident of # 21-A, Street No.20, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for complainant. Sh.Gagandeep Singh,counsel for OPs No.1&2. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that on being allured by the agent i.e. OP No.3, the complainant purchased the policy and plan of insurance i.e. Met Smart Life, the sum assured of which was Rs.7,20,2000/-.The complainant paid Rs.18000/- as premium amount vide receipt dated 21.5.2010 and he was issued policy No.20350026 showing date of commencement as 25.5.2010.Thereafter, the complainant regularly deposited half yearly premium of Rs.18,000/- on 19.11.2010, 3.6.2011, 28.11.2011, 26.4.2012, 19.11.2012, 20.5.2013, 25.11.2013, 19.5.2014 and on 5.11.2014 respectively totaling Rs.1,80,000/-. After completion of 5 years, the complainant approached and requested the OPs that he did not want to continue with the policy and want to surrender the policy but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant completed all the formalities and also submitted necessary documents with the OPs for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-alongwith growth. Later on, OP No.1 sent a letter dated 9.9.2015 to the complainant alongwith a cheque No.448214 drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd having refunded only Rs.634/-. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused great mental agony and tension to the complainant.
- On this back ground of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. the last date deposit i.e. 5.11.2014 till realization; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of depression suffered by the complainant and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.
- It may be stated here that complaint was admitted only against OPs No.1&2 who upon notice appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written statement .The OPs raised preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action; that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute; that the complainant has misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of service and mis-selling without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations. There is no unfair trade practice, or violation of contract and suppression of material facts against the OPs and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that the policy opted by the complainant was a Unit Linked Policy. It is further submitted that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product Metlife Smart Life plan had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up the proposal form bearing No.155880169 dated 18.5.2010.The complainant offered to pay a Modal Premium Rs.18,000/- half yearly towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.7,20,000/-.The complainant also signed up Declaration for Unit Linked Products and Benefits Illustration form for the above mentioned policy and therefore, he was well aware of all the terms and conditions pertaining to the given policy. Upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form alongwith the initial premium of Rs.18,000/- against the application, the OPs evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.20350026 on 25.5.2010 to the complainant for the premium paying term of 30 years. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 27.5.2010.
- It is further submitted that the welcome letter clearly stated that in case the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same and was entitled for cancellation available to him pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant had remitted premium till 21.11.2014 amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-and failed to pay renewal premium due for 21.5.2015, resultantly the policy was moved the premium discontinuous status.
- It is further submitted that since the Fund Value under the policy became less, the policy got upto foreclosed on dated 10.8.2015 and the foreclosure amount of Rs.634.32 was refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.448214. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have at all times acted as per the guidelines issued by IRDAI and the terms and conditions of the policy contract.
After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&2 has tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of V.Prashanth alongwith documents Exs.OP1 &OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The parties filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that clear cut fraud has been committed by the OPs and the OPs must be held under criminal case U/s 420 IPC. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that OP No.3 Lakhwinder Kau, approached the complainant, she being the resident of same locality and allured him in some investment scheme of OPs No.1&2 and assured the complainant that the scheme would be very helpful for him. The ld. counsel further argued that OP No.3 explained the insurance scheme to the complainant and told that there is very good investment scheme from the company of OPs No.1&2 and assured the complainant that he has to deposit the premium of Rs.18000/- half yearly for a period of 5 years and his life would be insured for a period of 30 years and no amount would be required to be deposited after five years. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant purchased the scheme and sum insured was Rs.7,20,000/-.The complainant paid premium of Rs.18000/- half yearly regularly for a period of five years thereby deposited in total Rs.1,80000/- with the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that after completion of five years, the complainant approached the OPs that he did not want to continue with the scheme and want to surrender the same. The ld. counsel further argued that he completed all the formalities and submitted the necessary documents for refund of Rs.1,80,000/-. The ld. counsel further argued that the amount was never refunded and to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OPs sent a letter with a cheque of Rs.634/- to the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that only Rs.634/- has been paid in lieu of Rs.1,80,000/- and thus cruel fraud has been played upon the complainant and it is un known in the history of this country that the complainant deposited Rs.1,80,000/- and has given/refunded only Rs.634/- in lieu of that amount. He prayed that the complaint be allowed. The ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the citation Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Jadhav Vijayalakshmi & Anr. II(2013)CPJ 9A(NC).
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that policy was for 30 years and the complainant deposited the premium for five years and after that he never deposited the amount and the valid amount which came to Rs.634/- was duly given to the complainant and prayed that complaint be dismissed.
- In support of his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and deposed as per his complaint. He has also tendered copy of proposal form, Ex.C1, insurance plan, Ex.C2 in which the sum insured is shown as Rs.7,20,000/- and the duration was 21 May 2010 to 21 May 2040 and the regular premium was Rs.18000/- to be paid half yearly. Ex.C3 is the copy of receipt showing the deposit of Rs.18000/- by the complainant in the name of the agent Lakhwinder Kaur.The complainant has proved all the receipts vide which he has deposited Rs.18000/- up to Ex.C11. Ex.C12 is the benefits of policy.Ex.C13, is the letter vide which amount of Rs.634.32 was sent to the complainant in lieu of the amount deposited.
- On the other hand on behalf of the OPs V.Prashanth has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and Ex.OP1 is the account opening form of the policy holder.
- As per the documents on the file, the complainant purchased Metlife Smart Life for sum insured of Rs.7,20,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/- and all the receipts are duly proved on the file. The complainant continued his policy for the period of five years.
- Admittedly the complainant was 69 years of age at the time of purchase of the policy and the policy is for 30 years.I t is strange that how the OPs No.1&2 had issued a policy to the complainant that too for 30 years when he was already 69 years of age at the time of taking the policy. Nobody is expected to live till 99 years of age in this country as the average age is around 65 years in our country.
After five years the complainant stopped paying the amount and strangely enough in lieu of 1,80,000/- paid by the complainant only Rs.634.32 were refunded by the OPs No.1&2 and the letter vide which this amount of Rs.634.32 has been refunded is on the file and nothing has been mentioned in this letter that how the OPs have calculated Rs.634.32 to be paid to the complainant. - As per Ex.C12, the surrender value is payable after three years of the policy and the surrender value will be the total fund value less the surrender charge shown in section 3 of the schedule.
- It is strange that in poor country like India when the person deposits Rs.1,80,000/- with the insurance company for a period of five years and his policy terminated, he has not refunded the money and only Rs.634/- was given in lieu of the deposit of Rs.1,80,000/-.This is un known in the canals of law of this country that how a meager amount is being paid to the complainant .
- The insurance company had played fraud upon the policy holders in connivance with their agents. The agents generally gives false information to the policy holder and gets money on the policy and never tells about the policy. If a person knows that if he terminates his policy and deposited Rs.1,80,000/- and only Rs.634/- will reimburse to him, he will never opt for policy. It is a cheating played upon the complainant by the OPs No.1&2 and thus Manager of OPs No.1&2 be prosecuted.
- It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Jadhav Vijayalakshmi & Anr.(Supra) that policy lapsed as employer stopped making payment of premium. It became sole responsibility of employer to settle and pay the entire insurance claim of petitioner and not only the share out of wholesale surrender value they received. State Commission erred in restricting liability to employer to pay only surrender value to complainant and directing LIC to pay balance amount of claim to complainant. Impugned order was modified.
- So it is a strange case of the insurance company in which a clear cut fraud was played upon the complainant and only Rs.634/- was given/refunded to him in lieu of Rs.180,000/- deposited by him for five years.
- So due to our above discussion, complaint stands allowed and the OPs No.1&2 are directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the last date of deposit i.e. 5.11.2014 till the whole amount is made. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.
- Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:10.12.2020 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.63 of 16.7.2016 Decided on: 10.12.2020 Sukhdev Singh, aged about 75 years, son of Sh.Harcharan Singh, resident of House No.45, Street No.23, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly known as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Regd. office: Brigade Seshamahar” 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Managing Director/Director.
- PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly known as Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), Branch Office:Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Manager.
- Lakhwinder Kaur, Advisor of PNB Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd., wife of Kiranjit Singh, resident of # 21-A, Street No.20, Anand Nagar-B, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for complainant. Sh.Gagandeep Singh,counsel for OPs No.1&2. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Sukhdev Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that on being allured by the agent i.e. OP No.3, the complainant purchased the policy and plan of insurance i.e. Met Smart Life, the sum assured of which was Rs.7,20,2000/-.The complainant paid Rs.18000/- as premium amount vide receipt dated 21.5.2010 and he was issued policy No.20350026 showing date of commencement as 25.5.2010.Thereafter, the complainant regularly deposited half yearly premium of Rs.18,000/- on 19.11.2010, 3.6.2011, 28.11.2011, 26.4.2012, 19.11.2012, 20.5.2013, 25.11.2013, 19.5.2014 and on 5.11.2014 respectively totaling Rs.1,80,000/-. After completion of 5 years, the complainant approached and requested the OPs that he did not want to continue with the policy and want to surrender the policy but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant completed all the formalities and also submitted necessary documents with the OPs for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,80,000/-alongwith growth. Later on, OP No.1 sent a letter dated 9.9.2015 to the complainant alongwith a cheque No.448214 drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd having refunded only Rs.634/-. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which caused great mental agony and tension to the complainant.
- On this back ground of the facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. the last date deposit i.e. 5.11.2014 till realization; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant, Rs.1,00,000/- on account of depression suffered by the complainant and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.
- It may be stated here that complaint was admitted only against OPs No.1&2 who upon notice appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written statement .The OPs raised preliminary objections that the instant complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action; that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law; that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute; that the complainant has misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency of service and mis-selling without any documentary evidence in support of his allegations. There is no unfair trade practice, or violation of contract and suppression of material facts against the OPs and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that the policy opted by the complainant was a Unit Linked Policy. It is further submitted that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product Metlife Smart Life plan had voluntarily applied for a policy by voluntarily filling up the proposal form bearing No.155880169 dated 18.5.2010.The complainant offered to pay a Modal Premium Rs.18,000/- half yearly towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.7,20,000/-.The complainant also signed up Declaration for Unit Linked Products and Benefits Illustration form for the above mentioned policy and therefore, he was well aware of all the terms and conditions pertaining to the given policy. Upon receipt of the duly filled up proposal form alongwith the initial premium of Rs.18,000/- against the application, the OPs evaluated and processed the proposal form on the basis of the information provided by the complainant and issued policy bearing No.20350026 on 25.5.2010 to the complainant for the premium paying term of 30 years. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 27.5.2010.
- It is further submitted that the welcome letter clearly stated that in case the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same and was entitled for cancellation available to him pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy. However, the complainant had remitted premium till 21.11.2014 amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-and failed to pay renewal premium due for 21.5.2015, resultantly the policy was moved the premium discontinuous status.
- It is further submitted that since the Fund Value under the policy became less, the policy got upto foreclosed on dated 10.8.2015 and the foreclosure amount of Rs.634.32 was refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.448214. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have at all times acted as per the guidelines issued by IRDAI and the terms and conditions of the policy contract.
After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C14 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&2 has tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of V.Prashanth alongwith documents Exs.OP1 &OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The parties filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that clear cut fraud has been committed by the OPs and the OPs must be held under criminal case U/s 420 IPC. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further argued that OP No.3 Lakhwinder Kau, approached the complainant, she being the resident of same locality and allured him in some investment scheme of OPs No.1&2 and assured the complainant that the scheme would be very helpful for him. The ld. counsel further argued that OP No.3 explained the insurance scheme to the complainant and told that there is very good investment scheme from the company of OPs No.1&2 and assured the complainant that he has to deposit the premium of Rs.18000/- half yearly for a period of 5 years and his life would be insured for a period of 30 years and no amount would be required to be deposited after five years. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant purchased the scheme and sum insured was Rs.7,20,000/-.The complainant paid premium of Rs.18000/- half yearly regularly for a period of five years thereby deposited in total Rs.1,80000/- with the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that after completion of five years, the complainant approached the OPs that he did not want to continue with the scheme and want to surrender the same. The ld. counsel further argued that he completed all the formalities and submitted the necessary documents for refund of Rs.1,80,000/-. The ld. counsel further argued that the amount was never refunded and to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OPs sent a letter with a cheque of Rs.634/- to the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that only Rs.634/- has been paid in lieu of Rs.1,80,000/- and thus cruel fraud has been played upon the complainant and it is un known in the history of this country that the complainant deposited Rs.1,80,000/- and has given/refunded only Rs.634/- in lieu of that amount. He prayed that the complaint be allowed. The ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the citation Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Jadhav Vijayalakshmi & Anr. II(2013)CPJ 9A(NC).
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that policy was for 30 years and the complainant deposited the premium for five years and after that he never deposited the amount and the valid amount which came to Rs.634/- was duly given to the complainant and prayed that complaint be dismissed.
- In support of his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and deposed as per his complaint. He has also tendered copy of proposal form, Ex.C1, insurance plan, Ex.C2 in which the sum insured is shown as Rs.7,20,000/- and the duration was 21 May 2010 to 21 May 2040 and the regular premium was Rs.18000/- to be paid half yearly. Ex.C3 is the copy of receipt showing the deposit of Rs.18000/- by the complainant in the name of the agent Lakhwinder Kaur.The complainant has proved all the receipts vide which he has deposited Rs.18000/- up to Ex.C11. Ex.C12 is the benefits of policy.Ex.C13, is the letter vide which amount of Rs.634.32 was sent to the complainant in lieu of the amount deposited.
- On the other hand on behalf of the OPs V.Prashanth has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and Ex.OP1 is the account opening form of the policy holder.
- As per the documents on the file, the complainant purchased Metlife Smart Life for sum insured of Rs.7,20,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/- and all the receipts are duly proved on the file. The complainant continued his policy for the period of five years.
- Admittedly the complainant was 69 years of age at the time of purchase of the policy and the policy is for 30 years.I t is strange that how the OPs No.1&2 had issued a policy to the complainant that too for 30 years when he was already 69 years of age at the time of taking the policy. Nobody is expected to live till 99 years of age in this country as the average age is around 65 years in our country.
After five years the complainant stopped paying the amount and strangely enough in lieu of 1,80,000/- paid by the complainant only Rs.634.32 were refunded by the OPs No.1&2 and the letter vide which this amount of Rs.634.32 has been refunded is on the file and nothinghas been mentioned in this letter that how the OPs have calculated Rs.634.32 to be paid to the complainant. - As per Ex.C12, the surrender value is payable after three years of the policy and the surrender value will be the total fund value less the surrender charge shown in section 3 of the schedule.
- It is strange that in poor country like India when the person deposits Rs.1,80,000/- with the insurance company for a period of five years and his policy terminated, he has not refunded the money and only Rs.634/- was given in lieu of the deposit of Rs.1,80,000/-.This is un known in the canals of law of this country that how a meager amount is being paid to the complainant .
- The insurance company had played fraud upon the policy holders in connivance with their agents. The agents generally gives false information to the policy holder and gets money on the policy and never tells about the policy. If a person knows that if he terminates his policy and deposited Rs.1,80,000/- and only Rs.634/- will reimburse to him, he will never opt for policy. It is a cheating played upon the complainant by the OPs No.1&2 and thus Manager of OPs No.1&2 be prosecuted.
- It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Jadhav Vijayalakshmi & Anr.(Supra) that policy lapsed as employer stopped making payment of premium. It became sole responsibility of employer to settle and pay the entire insurance claim of petitioner and not only the share out of wholesale surrender value they received. State Commission erred in restricting liability to employer to pay only surrender value to complainant and directing LIC to pay balance amount of claim to complainant. Impugned order was modified.
- So it is a strange case of the insurance company in which a clear cut fraud was played upon the complainant and only Rs.634/- was given/refunded to him in lieu of Rs.180,000/- deposited by him for five years.
- So due to our above discussion, complaint stands allowed and the OPs No.1&2 are directed to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the last date of deposit i.e. 5.11.2014 till the whole amount is made. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.
- Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:10.12.2020 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
