Complaint No: 132 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 02.08.2023.
Date of order: 20.02.2024.
Gurmit Singh Son of Sucha Singh, resident of Village Zahadpur, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Punjab National Bank, MetLife, Gandhi Chowk, Batala – 143505, through its Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, MetLife, situated at UNIT No. 701, 702, & 703, 7th Floor West Wing Raheja Tower, 26/27 MG Road, Bengaluru – 530068, through its Chairman / Authorized Signatory.
3. Punjab National Bank, Branch Gandhi Chowk, Batala, District Gurdaspur – 143505, through its Manager.
4. Nisha, Employee of Punjab National Bank, MetLife, Gandhi Chowk, Batala, Gurdaspur – 143505. (Mobile No. 83606-28096)
5. Amrit, Employee of Punjab National Bank, MetLife, Gandhi Chowk, Batala, Gurdaspur – 143505.
….Opposite Parties.
Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.U.R. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2: Sh.Vinod Harchand, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Honey Mahajan, Advocate.
Complaint against the Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 withdrawn.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Gurmit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.N.B. MetLife Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant opened his saving account in the Punjab National Bank, having account No. 0046000109291314 and the complainant is operating the same continuously since opening. It is pleaded that the complainant visited the bank of the opposite party No. 3. The employee of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 allured the complainant to get the policy cover of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and accordingly, the complainant has taken the policy cover bearing No. 22040512 and on account of allurement of the OP’s No. 1 and 2, the complainant has deposited four installments of the above said policy to the OP’s No. 1 and 2 with the premium of Rs.50,000/- half years. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant has approached the OP’s No. 1 and 2 for depositing 5 years installments, then the opposite party No. 4 met with the complainant and she advised the complainant to take a new policy with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. On the asking of the opposite party No. 4, the complainant took new policy having No. 23588960 and has paid two installments of Rs.50,000/- half years. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 4 gave assurance to the complainant that she will refund the earlier premium paid by the complainant to the said Company. She also said that if the complainant will not take the new policy then his earlier money paid to the company will not be refunded. The complainant in order to get his money back, on the asking of the OP No. 4 got a new policy stated above and had also paid Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further pleaded that now in the month of March 2023, the complainant visit the opposite parties and requested them to return his premium paid by him to the opposite parties i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- approximately. However, the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and always put of the matter on one pretext and other. 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 service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency 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 return the amount received by the opposite parties i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- towards the compensation on account of mental agony and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in law or on the true facts and circumstances of the matter, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine and the complaint is ex-facie misconceived and devoid of any merits. The complainant has made this complaint in order to raise a false and frivolous dispute just to harass the answering opposite parties’ company. It is pleaded that the complainant had applied for the one Policy with the company under duly filed Application form No. 212365279 on dated 16.11.2016 for an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for a premium paying term of 10 years. The answering opposite parties issued a policy bearing No. 22040512 based on the information provided by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that policy bearing No. 22040512 has been surrendered in July 2021 and surrender amount of Rs.1,36,643.71 has already been transferred to the account of policy holder on dated 27.07.2021 vide UTR No. CITIN21208320726. It is further pleaded that thereafter the complainant had applied for another Policy with the company under duly filed Application form No.314038010 on dated 22.12.2020 for an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for a premium paying term of 5 years. The answering opposite parties issued policy bearing No. 23588960 on dated 31.12.2020 based on the information provided by the policy holder. The answering opposite parties dispatched the policy documents carrying terms & conditions through Speed Post No. ED761284645 IN on 06th January 2021, which was delivered on the address as mentioned in the application form on 06th February 2021. It is further pleaded that in order to ensure transparency that the subject policy was issued as per policy holder's choice, the answering opposite parties provide the policy holder with a copy of the application form alongwith the policy document and that he was also provided with a free look cancelation option. Consequently, if on receipt of the policy document, the policy holder is not agreeable to the terms and conditions, he had the option to cancel the policy under the Free Look i.e. 15 days from the date of receiving the policy document as mandated by the Insurance Regulator and Development Authority (IRDA). It is further pleaded that the answering opposite parties’ company received a cancellation request from the complainant on 11th July 2021 i.e. after almost two years from the receipt of the policy documents, asking for cancellation and refund of premium on grounds of mis-selling and upon which the opposite parties after detailed investigation, responded vide letter dated 26th July 2022, informing the complainant that the said cancellation request has been declined by the company as it was well outside Free Look period of 15 days. It is further pleaded that the subject Policy contract was delivered to the complainant's address and even it is assumed the said Policy contract was mis-sold to the complainant then complainant should have approached the Insurance Company within the Free Look Period of 15 days. It is important to mention here that the aforementioned facts itself speaks that the complainant has filed the present complaint after thoughts and in order to extract monies from the Insurance Company. The complainant has also paid renewal premium amount in the subject policy. The complainant also sent another request for refund of premium on the pretext of mis-selling of policy through E-mail dated 22.02.2023 which has been replied by the answering opposite parties via E-mail dated 07.03.2023. It is further pleaded that the company has not received any communication within the Free Look period of 15 days and it is further evident that the complainant wants to walk away from the policy after enjoying cover and is deliberately creating the allegation of mis-selling to force the company to cancel the policy and now has filed this case before this Hon’ble Commission with wrong, false allegations. The complainant was completely aware of the plan details and features. It is further pleaded that upon the issuance of the subject policy contract, the Policy contracts were dispatched to the complainant and the same were delivered at the address provided in the proposal form. The Insurance Company neither received any query nor a complaint during the Free Look period with respect to the above mentioned policy. It was therefore presumed legally that the complainant and life assured were satisfied with the policy so issued. The complainant is stopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the concluded contract and denying the contents of the application form. It is further pleaded that the contract of insurance is a contract of uberime fide and as the company has provided services and covered the risk of the life of the complainant from the date of commencement of the policy as such the complainant is estopped from challenging the contract as such at such a belated stage.
On merits, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form. It is pleaded that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon'ble Court and the complainant has got no locus standi as well as cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OP No. 3. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 3 was/is not having any knowledge about any policy as alleged in this complaint nor any record of the said policy is available with the answering OP No.3. Moreover, the answering OP No. 3 is not having any concern with the other OP’s No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 with respect to issuance of any policy to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant never visited the answering OP No. 3 and also not made any request to the answering OP No. 3 as alleged in this complaint. Moreover, the answering OP No. 3 is not the necessary party in the present complaint, but in order to harass the answering OP No. 3, the complainant has made the party to answering OP No. 3 in the present false complaint and the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that no any cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the answering OP No. 3 to file the present complaint.
On merits, the opposite party No.3 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. The present complaint against the opposite parties No.4 and 5 has already been withdrawn by the complainant though his counsel vide order dated 02.01.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Gurmit Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 alongwith complaint.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Sanchit Gupta, (Manager - Legal, P.N.B. Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore) as Ex.OPW-1,2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1,2/1 to Ex.OP-1,2/7 alongwith reply.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Sharma, (Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-3/1 alongwith reply.
9. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
10. Written arguments not filed by the parties.
11. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had visited opposite party No.3 and employee of opposite parties no.1 and 2 allured the complainant to purchase policy and accordingly complainant purchased one policy and had deposited four installments of Rs.50,000/- each half yearly. It is further argued that thereafter complainant had approached opposite parties No.1 and 2 for depositing fifth installment and at that time opposite party No.4 met the complainant and advised the complainant to purchase new policy on which complainant had purchased new policy and paid two installments of Rs.50,000/- each half yearly. It is further argued that complainant was assured about the refund of earlier premium. It is further argued that in order to get the refund of earlier policy complainant had purchased new policy and paid Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further argued that in March, 2023 complainant visited the opposite parties and requested for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- but opposite parties refused which amounts to deficiency in service.
12. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 has argued that complainant had applied for one policy on 16.11.2016 for an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for a term of 10 years. It is further argued that the said policy was surrendered by the complainant in July, 2021 and amount of Rs.1,36,643.71 has been transferred to the account of the complainant. It is further argued that complainant had applied for another policy 22.12.2020 for an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- for a term of 5 years. It is further argued that opposite party issued policy on 31.12.2020 which was delivered to the complainant on 06.01.2021 and if the complainant was not in agreement with the terms and conditions, complainant was having option to cancel the policy within 15 days Free Look Period but in the present case complainant had made request for cancellation on 11.07.2021 almost after two years and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that opposite party No.3 has nothing to do with the issuance of policy of insurance and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. Complaint against opposite parties No.4 and 5 had already been withdrawn.
15. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the complainant and opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 and gone through the record.
16. To prove his case complainant has placed on file his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of policy of insurance Ex.C1, copy of cancellation request Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of cancellation request Ex.C4, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C5, copy of statement of account Ex.C8, copy of policy Ex.C7, copy of statement of account Ex.C6 whereas opposite parties No.1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit of Sanchit Gupta Manager Legal Ex.OPW-1,2/A, copy of policy of insurance Ex.OP-1,2/1, copy of first premium receipt Ex.OP-1,2/2, copy of proposal form Ex.OP-1,2/3 and Ex.OP-1,2/7, Ex.OP-1,2/6, copy of policy Ex.OP-1,2/5 containing detail Ex.OP-1,2/4, opposite party No.3 has placed on record affidavit of Ashwani Sharma Branch Manager Ex.OP-3/1.
17. Perusal of file shows that the policy of insurance was issued on 31.12.2020 which was delivered to the complainant on 06.01.2021 and complainant was required to make request for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from 07.01.2021 but in the present case complainant has made request on 11.07.2021 after considerable delay and after making payment of premiums. Perusal of cancellation request Ex.C4 shows that complainant has not mentioned any date nor has attached any postal receipt to prove that cancellation request was made within prescribed period of 15 days, as such we do not find any mal practice on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly, complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
18. Accordingly, complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 20, 2024 Member.
*YP*
