Haryana

Sonipat

CC/10/2016

Manju W/o Amandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.10 of 2016                                              Instituted on:06.01.2016.

                                Date of order:14.07.2016

 

Manju wife of Amandeep resident of Gali no.4, Devru road, Jiwan Vihar, Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.The Manager Punjab National Bank, Opp. Janki Dass Hospital, Sector 14, Sonepat.

2.PNB Metlife India Ins. Co. Ltd. office Techniplex Complex-1, Unit no.101, Ist Floor, Veer Savarkar Flyover, off SV road, Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400062, Maharashtra.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Anil Kumar      Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Manoj Kumar     Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Mrs. Mukesh Tyagi,  Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she went to respondent no.1 for the purpose of two FD amounting to Rs.one lac each in the name of her both daughters.  But on 16.10.2015, she received information that two PNB Meet Life Policy no.21702854 and 21703741 dated 16.10.2015 in the name of the complainant with a premium of Rs.99,981/- each were issued.  The complainant was surprised and shocked to see because she has never requested the respondents in this regard.  The complainant requested the respondents so many times to cancel the said policies, but of no use.  The complainant has also requested the respondent no.2 through e-mails on 24.10.2015 for cancellation of the policies.   The complainant has already returned the policy bond of policy no.21702854 through registered post on 5.11.2015.  But the respondents are not paying any heed on the request of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated  as respondent.  In case the complainant is not satisfied with the policies taken by her from respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 is not responsible for the same. The only dispute is regarding the cancellation  of the policies taken by her from the respondent no.2 by her own free will.  The complainant herself bought/invested her amount in the insurance policies of PNB Metlife Ins. Co. Ltd. If the complainant filled the FDR Form of the respondent no.1, then certainly the respondent no.1 would have opened a FD account of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1.

          The respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 has already informed the complainant that in case she wish to cancel the policies, then she may submit the free look cancellation request alongwith original policy documents to the respondent no.2. But the complainant has not submitted the free look cancellation request as per the procedure till date.   The complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the produce i.e. Met Endowment Saving Plan had voluntarily applied for two policies by voluntarily filling up the proposal form on 9.10.2015.  The complainant offered to pay a modal premium of Rs.99,981/- yearly towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.10,06,572/-.  The respondent no.2 thereafter has issued policy no.21702854 and 21803741 on 16.10.2015 for the premium paying term of 10 years.  In case the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, she should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same.  The complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2015 informed the respondent no.2 that she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and requested for the cancellation of the policies and refund of the amount.  Similarly, the complainant vide letter dated 5.11.2015 again requested the respondent no.2 for cancellation of the policy.  But the respondent on.2 has not received the free look cancellation request as per the prescribed procedure from the complainant till date. The respondent no.2 only upon receipt of the free look cancellation request, shall process the cancellation request as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has approached the respondent no.1 for issuance of two FDRs in the name of her two daughters i.e. for Rs.one lac each.  But on 16.10.2015, she received information that two PNB Meet Life Policy no.21702854 and 21703741 dated 16.10.2015 in the name of the complainant with a premium of Rs.99,981/- each were issued.  The complainant was surprised and shocked to see because she has never requested the respondents in this regard.  The complainant requested the respondents so many times to cancel the said policies, but of no use.  The complainant has also requested the respondent no.2 through e-mails on 24.10.2015 for cancellation of the policies.   The complainant has already returned the policy bond of policy no.21702854 through registered post on 5.11.2015.  But the respondents are not paying any heed on the request of the complainant and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 has been falsely implicated  as respondent.  In case the complainant is not satisfied with the policies taken by her from respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 is not responsible for the same. The only dispute is regarding the cancellation  of the policies taken by her from the respondent no.2 by her own free will.  The complainant herself bought/invested her amount in the insurance policies of PNB Metlife Ins. Co. Ltd. If the complainant filled the FDR Form of the respondent no.1, then certainly the respondent no.1 would have opened a FD account of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent no.1.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 has already informed the complainant that in case she wish to cancel the policies, then she may submit the free look cancellation request alongwith original policy documents to the respondent no.2. But the complainant has not submitted the free look cancellation request as per the procedure till date.   The complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the produce i.e. Met Endowment Saving Plan had voluntarily applied for two policies by voluntarily filling up the proposal form on 9.10.2015.  The complainant offered to pay a modal premium of Rs.99,981/- yearly towards the premium under the said plan for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs.10,06,572/-.  The respondent no.2 thereafter has issued policy no.21702854 and 21803741 on 16.10.2015 for the premium paying term of 10 years.  In case the complainant was disagreed with the terms and conditions of the policy, she should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same.  The complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2015 informed the respondent no.2 that she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and requested for the cancellation of the policies and refund of the amount.  Similarly, the complainant vide letter dated 5.11.2015 again requested the respondent no.2 for cancellation of the policy.  But the respondent on.2 has not received the free look cancellation request as per the prescribed procedure from the complainant till date. The respondent no.2 only upon receipt of the free look cancellation request, shall process the cancellation request as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Thus, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          In the present case, from the reply of respondent no.2, one thing is clear that the complainant vide letter dated 24.10.2015 informed the respondent no.2 that she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and requested for the cancellation of the policies and refund of the amount.  Similarly, the complainant vide letter dated 5.11.2015 again requested the respondent no.2 for cancellation of the policy. But as per the respondent no.2 that the said requests of the complainant could not be processed due to non-receipt of the free cancellation request as per the prescribed procedure from the complainant till date.

          The complainant has placed on record the copy of e-mai dated 24.10.2015(Ex.C1), copy of letter dated 24.10.2015 alongwith postal receipt (Ex.C2) and copy of letter dated 5.11.2015 & 6.11.2015  alongwith postal receipt (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) and she has requested the respondents for the refund of her deposited amount to the tune of Rs.1,99,962/-. 

          The respondents have also placed on record Annexure OP-2  i.e. copy of letter dated 24.10.2015 sent by the complainant.

          The bare perusal of the documents itself shows that the complainant has returned the policy no. 21702854 to the respondent no.2 which was received by her.  As per statement of account placed on record by the respondent no.1, regarding the policies amount of Rs.2 lacs was debited on 15.10.2015 in favour of the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 returned the amount of policies i.e. Rs.one lac on 15.2.2016 and Rs.one lac on 24.2.2016 against the policies mentioned above.

          In our view, the respondent no.2 has utilized the amount of the complainant for their personal gain, whereas, it was the duty of the respondent no.2 to refund the amount to the complainant immediately on the day when first time they received the request from the complainant regarding cancellation of the policies and for refund of her amount.  But at that time, the requests of the complainant were not responded to and after filing of the present case, the respondent no.2 proceeded to refund the amount to the complainant.  In our view, the complainant is entitled to get interest on her amount from the respondent no.2 w.e.f. 15.11.2015 to 15.2.2016.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to pay interest to the complainant at the rate of 09% per annum on the amount of Rs.2 lacs w.e.f. 15.11.2015 to 15.02.2016.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:14.07.2016