Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/109

Premjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Metlife Insurance Co..Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

13 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 109 dated 21.03.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 13.10.2023.

 

Premjit Singh aged about 39 years son of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of House No.6833/17/2, Street No.5, Mohar Singh Nagar, Ludhiana-141008.

M. No.78891-20966.

E-mail ID:prem10370@yahoo.co.in                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. PNB Met Life Insurance Company, Lodhi Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through Manager-141001.
2. Manager, PNB Met Life Insurance Company, Lodhi Tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana
3. Head Office of PNB Met Life Insurance Company, 1, Techniplex Complex, Off Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062, Maharashtra through General Manager.                                                                                                               …..Opposite parties  

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Premjit Singh in person.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Nitin Kapila, Advocate.

 

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that in the month of August 2015, the complainant bought a life insurance bearing No.21646618 from opposite party No.1 on annual premium of Rs.11,619/-. At the time buying the policy, employee of opposite parties asked the complainant with regard to start of ACH (Automated Clearing House) service in the policy which the complainant refused to opt by saying that he will pay the installment manually in the office of opposite party No.1. But despite that, the opposite parties deducted the premium under ACH service and due to which bank of the complainant charged fine. The complainant stated that he was paying the premium regularly on time. He went to office of opposite party No.1 with request to close/stop the ACH service upon which opposite party No.2 and other employee told the complainant verbally to stop the ACH service from his account. The complainant further stated that on 11.08.2020, his bank charged fine of Rs.295/- due to ACH service. On 13.08.2020, the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1 to deposit the premium and gave an application for cancellation of ACH services. However on 10.08.2021 due to non-cancellation of ACH services on account of negligence of the opposite parties, bank of the complainant fined him Rs.295/-. On 13.08.2020 the complainant gave a writing to cancel the ACH service and the opposite parties admitted their mistake and gave assurance to cancel the ACH services. The complainant further stated that in the month of August 2021 on account of illness of his mother Rajinder Kaur, he took loan from his relative and deposited the same in his savings account of SBI bearing No.55140073060 but opposite party No.1 deducted premium of Rs.11,860/- under ACH service on 31.08.2021. The complainant again sent to office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about cancellation of ACH services but they did not give any satisfactory reply. However, the complainant claimed to continue with the said policy by paying the premium manually. The complainant has suffered agony, tension and physical harassment due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which he is entitled to compensation.  In the end, the complainant prayed to give direction to the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; lack of cause of action; lack of locus standi to file the complaint; the complainant estopped by his own act and conduct; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties  etc. The opposite parties stated that the complainant himself took facility of ACH and also signed the ACH form. However, the complainant made request for cancellation of ACH on 13.08.2020 which was declined by the opposite parties due to mismatch of his specimen signature observed on proposal form and application dated 13.08.2020 regarding which he was duly intimated and was requested to provide fresh application with correct signature. The opposite parties stated that till date they have not received fresh application for cancellation of ACH facility from the complainant. Moreover, the charges were deducted by his bank on account of insufficient funds as such, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any such charges to the complainant.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                 The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement. 

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of welcome letter dated 27.08.2015, Ex. C2 is the copy of premium receipt dated 13.08.2020, Ex. C3 is the copy of letter dated 13.08.2020 of the complainant for cancellation of ACH, Ex. C4 and Ex. C5 is the copy of statement of account of the complainant with SBI, Ex. C6 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Chirag Choudhary, Senior Manager – Legal, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana and submitted documents Ex. OP1 is the copy of proposal form, Ex. OP2 is the copy of application form dated 04.08.2015, Ex. OP3 is the copy of letter dated 13.08.2020 of the complainant for cancellation of ACH and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and affidavit produced on record by both the parties.

7.                In this case, the complainant obtained Metlife Major Illness Premium Back Cover policy from the opposite parties on 27.08.2015 which he got renewed from time to time by paying premium regularly. At the time of obtaining the policy, the complainant issued ACH (Automated Clearing House) mandate for payment of annual premium. The complainant requested the opposite parties to cancel the AHC by moving an application dated 13.08.2020 Ex. C3 = Ex. OP3 but even then on 10.08.2021 a sum of Rs.295/- were deducted from the account of the complainant on account of ECS/ACH facility which stands proved by the complainant by tendering his statement of account Ex. C5 with State Bank of India and subsequently the premium of Rs.11,860/- was debited on 31.08.2021 from the account of the complainant as per account statement Ex. C5. The opposite parties made a lame explanation that there was mismatch of signature of the complainant on his application which was furnished by the complainant on 13.08.2020. The said contention of the opposite parties is not tenable as the complainant submitted the application for cancellation of ACH facility by visiting the branch of the opposite parties itself. Even otherwise, no communication has been placed on record by the opposite parties whereby the factum of mismatch of the signature was informed to the complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by not cancelling the ACH facility. In the given circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.295/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from date of deduction i.e. 10.08.2021 till actual payment. The opposite parties are further burdened to pay composite cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.295/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from date of deduction i.e. 10.08.2021 till actual payment, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Liability of the opposite parties is held joint and several. Compliance of the order be made with 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:13.10.2023.

Gobind Ram.