DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  630

                                                Instituted on:    25.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       13.02.2017

Labh Singh son of Pritam Singh, R/O St. No.11, Kishan Bagh, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab National Bank, through its Chief Manager, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.

2.     PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited, through its M.D, Registered Office: Brigade Seshmahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavangudi, Bangalore-560004 (Karnataka)

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Parmod Saxena, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Labh Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is having a saving bank account number 0419000100331323 with the Op number 1 for more than 15 years.  Further case of the complainant is that last year in the first week of October, 2015 the complainant visited OP number 1 for the purpose of depositing Rs.60,000/- by way of FDR, but the employees of OP number 1 told the complainant  that this amount will fetch more interest if the same is deposited for one year in another scheme. As such, on the assurance of the officials of OP number 1 the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.60,000/- for one year in the shape of FDR. One lady officer got the signatures of the complainant on different printed performas by assuring these papers are required for the purpose of FDR.  Further case of the complainant is that he was surprised and shocked by receiving a call from the bank that the next instalment of Rs.60,000/- is required to be deposited, as such the complainant immediately contacted OP number 1 on 29.09.2016 then he was informed that a policy number 21702481 of PNB Met Life has been issued not the FDR. It is further stated that the complainant is a simple and small farmer and is not in a position to deposit Rs.60,000/- every year. The complainant also wrote a letter to the OPs, but despite that the Ops again deducted Rs.60,000/- from the account of the complainant on 13.10.2016 and in this way, the Ops have wrongly deducted Rs.1,20,000/-, which is said to be wrong and without any approval from the complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund him an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @ 18% and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs. It is further stated that the complainant never approached the OPs within the period of 15 days free look period of the policy. The complainant has falsely involved OP number 1 in the complaint.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, malicious, and has been filed with malafide intention, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has voluntarily applied for issuance of the policy, that the complainant did not opt to cancel the policy within the stipulated period of fifteen days. It is stated that the complainant purchased the policy after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, namely, Met Smart Premium and applied by filling form number 209083686 dated 7.10.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- on year basis and signed all the required documents.  It is further stated that the Op was in receipt of a complaint dated 30.09.2016 whereby the complainant alleged that the policy in dispute was wrongly sold to the complainant and further claimed refund of the amount of premium. It is stated further that the proper services have been provided to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. Further it is stated that the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the policy voluntarily filled in the proposal form and it is only after the receipt of duly filled proposal form along with first premium that the request was processed. The policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 13.10.2015 through Blue Dart Consignment number 40716520913 and 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 the complainant as per clause 7.1, but that was not done.   It is stated that the OP is not liable to entertain the request after the expiry of the said period.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 and copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-5 copy of account statement and Ex.C-6 copy of letter dated 14.10.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             Keeping in view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

7.             In the present complaint, the version of the complainant is that he visited OP number 1 for making FDR for Rs.60,000/- and then the officials of the OP number 1 advised to invest the amount for one year to fetch more interest, as such believing the words of OP number 1,  the complainant signed the papers for investment as FDR for one year, but to his great surprise, the amount was invested in a policy of OP number 2.  The OP number 1 even after one year deducted an amount of Rs.60,000/- from his account on 29.9.2016, which is said to be illegal one, as such the complainant requested the Ops for cancellation of the policy and further requested for the refund of his money. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has further contended that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he should have cancelled the policy within 15 days free look period as has been mentioned in the policy.

8.             It is admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the Ops and had approached the OP number 1 for deposit of Rs.60,000/- in the shape of FDR in his favour and then he was advised to invest in the policy of OP number 2 as the proposal form attached with the document Ex.OP1/1 bears the official stamp of OP number 1.

9.             Now, the question arises whether the complainant on receiving the policy had requested the OP number 2 for the cancellation of the policy well in time or not and whether the complainant had visited the OP number 1 for making FDR of Rs.60,000/- or not.           

10.           Ex.C-2 is the copy of the legal notice served upon the OPs, which clearly shows that the complainant requested for refund of the so deposited amount  in the shape of FDR, but all in vain and the Ops did not refund the amount. We may mention that the case of the complainant is that he approached the OP number 1 for getting the FDR of Rs.60,000/-, but the OP number 1 wrongly and with malafide intention invested the amount of the complainant in the policy of OP number 2, who is the sister concern of OP number.1 All this show that no doubt the complainant went to OP number 1 for making FDR, but there he got allowed to invest the amount in the policy in question.

11.           Further the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has argued vehemently that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he could have cancelled the same within 15 days free look period. But, the Ops have nothing produced on record that the policy in question was actually delivered to the complainant or not nor any evidence has been produced on record to show that the policy in question was actually delivered to the complainant.

12.           The learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record the judgments of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Commission, Punjab, delivered in First appeal Number 341 of 2013, decided on 7.1.2016 titled as Life Insurance Company Limited versus Manoj Kumar, wherein it has been held that “the policy was unit linked plan. No free look period option was exercised by the complainant in this case. The District Forum ordered the refund of the amount by deducting 10% amount therefrom under surrender charges on the basis of Regulation 2010. The counsel for the appellant argued before us that Regulation 2010 shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official gazette and shall apply to all products of Unit Linked Life Insurance cleared by the authority thereafter. The notification of the Regulation 2010 was published in the year 2010 and the complainant purchased the policy on 07.10.2015. It cannot be said that the policy was purchased prior to 2010 and hence above notification in the year 2010 can levy the discontinuance charges as per Regulation No.8. i.e. surrender charges of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and Surrender Charges Regulation 2010.  In the circumstances of the case; the order passed by the District Forum under challenge in this case cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous because there is no proof of courier receipt regarding service of insurance policy documents on the complainant in this case, as urged by the Op now appellant.   As a result of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed”.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this citation is fully applicable in the present case as well.  As such, we further find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited versus Preeti Prasad 2015(2) CLT 113(NC), wherein it has been held that since the insurance company could not place any document on record to substantiate that policy document was actually sent to the complainant and was received by him. There was no question of availing free look period of 15 days and the complainant cannot be bound by terms and conditions of the policy document.  In the present case also, the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the policy document was sent to the complainant and the same was actually delivered to the complainant.  As such, there was no question of availing free look period of 15 days in the present case.

13.           The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited a judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission pronounced in First Appeal No.1173 of 2014 titled as Paramjit Kaur versus Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited, wherein in para number 5, it is mentioned that "perusal of disputed policy reveals that it was named as Life Long Unit Linked Fund and sum insured was Rs.14,00,000/- and regular annual premium amount was Rs.1,00,000/-. It also covered accidental benefits of Rs.14,00,000/-. Learned State Commission observed that complaint was not maintainable in the light of judgment of this Commission in III (2013) CPJ 203(NC) Ram Lal Aggarwalla versus Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, whereas, perusal of aforesaid judgment reveal that in the aforesaid case Unit Gain Super Diamond Policy was taken with Rs.2,00,000/- annual premium for 24 years. Policy in the aforesaid case was for investment purposes whereas, disputed policy is for covering life as well as accidental benefit and this policy cannot be equated with policy in the case of Ram Lal Aggarwalla (Supra). Learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable as policy was for  investment in speculative business. Learned counsel for the petition has placed reliance on judgment of this commission in 2012 Law Suit (CO) 606- Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Addanki Satyanarayana in which claim for unit linked policy with life insurance was held maintainable before Consumer Fora, though, in that policy maturity value was Rs.2,51,73,756/- and death benefit was only Rs.5,02,000/- whereas in the case in hand, sum assured was Rs.14,00,000/- along with accidental benefits of same amount. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint filed by the complainant was maintainable before learned State Commission and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and appeal is to be allowed.

14.           In view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the OP number 2 is not only deficient in service, but also indulged in unfair trade practice and as such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP number 2  to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 25.10.2016 till realisation. The OP number 2 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and litigation expenses.

15.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 13, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                             (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member