Complaint No: 243 of 2019.

                                                                    Date of Institution: 23.07.2019.

                                                                           Date of order: 17.10.2023.

Kulwinder Singh S/o Baldev Singh resident of Village Shahpur Aryian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, through Power of attorney Smt. Kulwant Kaur w/o Baldev Singh resident of Village Shahpur Aryian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.  

                                                                                                                                                         …...........Complainant.

                                                                                                            VERSUS

1.       Punjab National Bank Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, Eminat Mall, Mall Road, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Manager. Pin Code – 143001.

2.       Punjab National Bank Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Amritsar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, through its Manager. Pin Code - 143501.

3.       PNB, Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Techniplex Complex-1, Unit No. 101, 1st Floor, Veer Savarkar Flyover, Off S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400062, Maharastra.  Pin Code – 400104.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties.

                                                 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate.

   For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Kulwinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is NRI having bank A/c No. 004600506360035 in Punjab National Bank Branch Batala District Gurdaspur. It is submitted that in the month of December 2015, the complainant went to the bank branch to get prepared FDR as he had sufficient surplus funds in his bank account and approached the concerned office, who referred the complainant to the officer dealing with PNB Metlife, which is owned agency of PNB. It is further pleaded that the said officer Mr. Shallu Sharma code- 99043391 allured the complainant to invest money in PNB Metlife and said the complainant should take policy of yearly premium of Rs.1 Lac and pay three installments of Rs.1 Lac for three year and thereafter he will get regular yearly return of 10% from fifth year and on completion of 10 years he will get 60% of assured amount and all benefits under the policy. It is further pleaded that the complainant was not aware about the conditions of policy and he believed on the said employee and gave consent to invest Rs.1 Lac in the said scheme. It is further pleaded that complainant asked the said officer that he should make arrangement of automatically deduction of second and third installment of Rs.1 Lac from his account. It is further pleaded that the said officer with malafide intention to cause wrongful financial loss to the complainant had deducted Rs.2,99,435/- from above said account of the complainant and issued policy No. 21775908 with premium amount of Rs.2,88,946/- without knowledge of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant remained under impression that the said officer had deducted the amount of three installments from his above said bank account towards payment of premium for three months and thereafter he went to abroad and policy was sent at the residential address of the complainant in India. It is further pleaded that policy was received by mother of the complainant who is an illiterate lady. It is further alleged that now the complainant came to India and received the above policy from his mother and went to bank branch to know about the policy and was surprised to know that the above agent had invested entire amount as first installment of the policy and he was marked defaulter in account for non-payment of second and third installments. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested for cancellation of the policy but the concerned officer had refused to disclose the surrender value of the policy and said first complainant should give consent for cancellation as he is defaulter. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested to opposite parties that he is not defaulter but the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practice and caused him wrongful financial loss by making policy of premium of 3 Lacs yearly. It is further pleaded that the complainant is going back to Italy where he worked as labourer. It is further pleaded that present complaint filed by him through power of attorney Smt. Kulwant Kaur mother of the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to

Repay policy amount of Rs.2,99,435/- alongwith interest @12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as mental pain, and litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant with malafide intention mentioned the wrong description of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the array of the complaint; that the complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has failed to make out a case of "Deficiency of Service" as alleged or otherwise within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that at the very outset the answering opposite parties denies the contentions, averments made by the complainant as the same are baseless and without any merit and the complainant be put to strict proof of the same and submit that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant with malafide did not disclose the true and correct facts before the Hon'ble Commission and filed a false complaint only to get undue benefit at the cost of answering opposite parties. It is further pleaded that present complaint is clear cut misuse of the Consumer Protection Act and the contract of insurance between the complainant and opposite parties is governed by its terms & conditions and the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the opposite parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is pleaded that the Policy schedule filed by the complainant itself states that the Premium paying term under the policy was of "10 years" and as such he was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature. It is further pleaded that the complainant had received the policy documents and all the applicable charges, Premium paying terms, benefits etc., are duly mentioned in the policy and as such he was fully aware about all the terms and conditions and benefits. It is further pleaded that as per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002 insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document:-

"whenever an insurer is forwarding a policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by the letter forwarding the policy to the insured that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms or conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund an amount equal to the non-allocated premium plus the charges levied by cancellation of units plus the fund values as on date of cancellation subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover for the period on cover less expenses incurred by the company on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges". It is further pleaded that opposite parties received proposal Form No. 209824181 dated 29.12.2018 through Punjab National Bank, Branch Batala, wherein the complainant proposed for PNB Met Money Back Plan. It is further pleaded that in the proposal form the complainant declared to be 12th pass and declared his income as Rs.12,00,000/- per annum from Supervisor of Bonilla Company (SPA). It is further pleaded that the detail of the plan, policy term & premium paying term was also duly mentioned in the proposal form. It is further pleaded that complainant appointed his wife Jaswinder Kaur as his nominee under the policy and complainant signed the Proposal application form in English after admitting & understanding the contents thereof to be correct. It is further pleaded that after receiving the proposal form & documents, the opposite parties issued policy No. 21775908 dated 23.01.2016. It is further pleaded that said policy was send through Blue Dart Courier on 23.01.2016 at the given address of the complainant. It is further pleaded that it is wrong that the complainant was not aware about the terms & conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the premium under the policy was Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the premium amount of Rs.2,88,946/- was deducted without the consent and knowledge of complainant. It is further pleaded that it is also wrong that the complainant went abroad and the policy was received by the mother of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding receipt of policy by his mother. It is further pleaded that proposal form which was place on record by the complainant clearly shows the premium amount, sum assured and premium paying term, which itself falsify the story of complainant regarding policy. It is further pleaded that after the payment of initial premium, the complainant did not pay any premium under the policy and consequently the policy was lapsed w.e.f. 31.12.2016 due to non-payment of premium. It is further pleaded that thereafter on 28.03.2017 the call center team of answering opposite parties received the call from customer wherein he inquired about the surrender of policy. It is further pleaded that thereafter on 09.07.2019 the complainant again inquired about the reinstatement process & surrender process of the policy. It is further pleaded that on 29.06.2019 the answering opposite parties received a complaint regarding his policy and made a prayer for cancellation of his policy & refunding the principal amount with interest. It is further pleaded that opposite parties vide letter dated 03.07.2019 rejected the request of the complainant vide letter dated 03.07.2019 as the request for the cancellation was not received within free look period of 15 days as per regulation 6 (2) of IRDA. It is further pleaded that from the said facts, it is clear that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding the receipt of policy by his mother. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that since, the complainant failed to pay the regular premium under the policy, therefore as per clause. 4.4 (Part C) of the policy document, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount as the regular premium for the first three years has not been received. It is further pleaded that the policy is lapsed and no benefits are payable.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of Kulwinder Singh, (Complainant) alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Sharma, (Senior Manager - Legal, PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd, Gurgaon) as Ex.OP-1,2,3/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2,3/B to Ex.OP-1,2,3/R.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.                      

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is NRI and in December, 2015 complainant had approached the PNB for depositing the amount in the shape of FDR. However, complainant was referred to officer of PNB Metlife Mr.Shallu Sharma who allured the complainant to invest the amount by paying yearly premium of Rs.1,00,000/- in three installments and thereafter getting regular return of 10% from fifth year and on completion of 10 years complainant shall be entitled to get 60% of assured amount. However, the officer of opposite parties deducted Rs.2,99,435/- from the account of the complainant and issued policy without knowledge of the complainant and thereafter complainant went abroad and the policy document was received by his illiterate mother and on coming back to India complainant came to know that entire amount of Rs.2,88,946/- has been received as first premium and complainant was declared defaulter for non payment of further installments. Complainant has made request for cancellation of the policy and refund of amount which was declined which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.       Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainant had purchased policy of insurance with date of issued i.e. 30.11.2016 and the premium paying term was 10 years with deposit of annual premium of Rs.2,94,176/-. The said policy document was received by the complainant on 23.01.2016 and complainant was within his right to get the policy cancelled within 15 days free look period but complainant failed to avail the free look period and as such on failure of complainant to deposit remaining installments of premiums the policy stood elapsed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is time barred.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased PNB Metlife Money Back Plan from opposite parties and the policy issued date was 30.11.2016 and policy document was received on 23.01.2016. It is further admitted fact that on 28.03.2017 for the first time call centre team of the opposite parties received call from the complainant and inspite of the fact that second premium was already due when call was made by the complainant and thereafter no action was taken by the complainant. Thereafter complainant approached the opposite parties on 29.06.2019 for cancellation of policy with the plea that the complainant was befooled by officer of PNB Meftlife Mr.Shallu Sharma and the complainant had went back abroad and could not avail the free look period of 15 days. But perusal of file shows that complainant has not placed on record any document in the shape of visa and ticket of some airline to prove this fact that complainant was not in India for the period of 15 days after receipt of courier on 23.01.2016. Even the copy of passport placed on record does not show any date of arrival or departure from India by the complainant and as such complainant has miserably failed to prove this fact that complainant had not received the policy document and was not able to avail the free look period of 15 days. As such we have no hesitation in holding that complainant after receipt of copy of policy did not exercise the option during the free look period of 15 days either for cancellation or for modification as per terms and conditions thereon as per regulation 6 (2) of IRDA and as such complainant cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy and declaration signed by the complainant.

11.     Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.                                

12.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                        President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 17, 2023                                                        Member.

*YP*