Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/186

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Harjit Singh Brar

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :        186

Date of Institution :   5.07.2016

Date of Decision :     10.01.2017

Pritam Singh son of Gajjan Singh r/o village Tehna, District Faridkot.

                                                         .....Complainant

                   Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Faridkot through its Manager.

2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1^st Floor, 3266/1, Sheranwali Gate, behind State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala-147001.

3. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office Brigade Seshamahal-5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi Banglore-560004.

   ....Opposite Parties

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum : Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President.

                   Sh P Singla, Member.

 

 

Present: Sh Harjit Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Yash Pal Bansal, Ld Counsel for Ops No. 1,

    Sh A S Virdi, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3,

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to Ops to return the amount under Insurance Policy bearing no.21265653 alongwith benefits and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.3 lacs as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation.

 2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a saving account with OP-1 and employees of OPs got signatures and thumb impression of complainant on some papers stating that there is a much better scheme for the benefit of complainant and on their assurance, complainant agreed for the scheme and they deducted Rs.30,000/-from his account and later on, he received some documents and then, he came to know, that Ops have issued an insurance policy to complainant for annual instalments and complainant was not agreed for this. Moreover, complainant came to know that OPs mentioned date of birth of complainant wrongly in insurance policy as exact date of birth of complainant is 10.10.1953, but Ops mentioned the date of birth as 10.10.1960 and thus, they have played fraud with complainant. Complainant was not in need of any insurance policy and therefore, he made several requests to OPs to refund his amount with interest, but they did not pay any heed to his requests, rather they got deposited the 2^nd instalment of Rs.30,000/- from him. This amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. He has further prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.08.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

  4                                     On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and it is asserted that for right conclusion of present complaint, it should be referred to civil court. It is further averred that OP-1 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in present complaint. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that employees of answering OP neither took signatures of complainant on any blank paper nor gave any assurance to complainant and even complainant has wrongly mentioned the word refunded, rather OP-1 transferred the amount of Rs.30,000/- only on instructions of complainant from his account to the account of Metlife on 19.02.2014 from where complainant purchased the policy in question. Complainant obtained the policy from OP-2 and 3 at his own and paid Rs.30,000/-on 24.02.2015 from his saving fund account. It is further averred that OP-1 did not know anything about the fate of policy and OP-1 is not bound to return any amount to complainant. Complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental tension due to OP-1 as they have no role to play in the purchase of said policy by complainant from OP-2 and 3. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against Ops.

5                             OP-2  and 3 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint is false, frivolous and it is filed with ulterior motive to avail undue advantage and it is an abuse of process of law as it is filed with malafide intentions. It is further averred that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is brought before the Forum that complainant voluntarily applied for the policy in question for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowing about the terms and conditions of the same. Policy was issued to complainant on 24.02.2014 and thereafter, policy documents were issued to him on 25.02.2014  and even on receipt of policy and policy documents, he did not raise any objection at that time. Moreover, he was also given free look period of 15 days, during which he was free to cancel the said policy, if he was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions of policy, but complainant did not do so and it was presumed that contract of insurance between parties was legally concluded. It is further averred that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of policy, complainant voluntarily filled up the proposal form on 19.02.2014 and himself offered to pay Rs.29,958/-yearly towards  premium under the said policy plan for sum assured of Rs. 2, 94,000/- and he also signed the Benefit Illustration Form for this policy and thus, he was fully aware of all terms and conditions of the policy in question. It is further averred that complainant remitted only two premiums under the policy in question amounting to total of Rs.59,209.42 and thereafter, failed to pay renewal premium due for 24.02.2016 and resultantly, the policy of complainant is now in lapsed mode. Since complainant has not paid the premiums for the first three years of policy, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit under policy. Complainant is an educated person and it can not be said that he did not go through the terms and conditions of policy before purchasing the same. It is further averred that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed in liminee. However, on merits, OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                 Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

7                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of S N Sinha as Ex Op-1/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Motty Johan General Manager as Ex. OP-2,3/1 and documents Ex OP-2,3/2 to 10 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2 and 3.

8                 Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant is having a saving account with OP-1 and employees of OPs got signatures and thumb impression of complainant on some papers stating there is a much better scheme for the benefit of complainant and on their assurance, complainant agreed for the scheme and they deducted Rs.30,000/-from his account and later on, he received some documents and then, he came to know, that Ops have issued an insurance policy to him for annual instalments, but he was not agreed for this. He also came to know that OPs mentioned wrong date of birth of complainant in insurance policy as exact date of birth of complainant is 10.10.1953, but Ops mentioned the date of birth as 10.10.1960 and thus, they have played fraud with complainant. Complainant did not require any insurance policy and therefore, he made several requests to OPs to refund his amount with interest, but they did not pay any heed to his requests, rather he got deposited 2^nd instalment of Rs.30,000/-from him. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him and therefore, he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 4.

9                                    To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued before the Forum that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and it is asserted that for right conclusion of present complaint, it should be referred to civil court. It is further averred that OP-1 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in present complaint. OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that employees of answering OP neither took signatures of complainant on any blank paper nor gave any assurance to complainant and even complainant has wrongly mentioned the word refunded, rather OP-1 transferred the amount of Rs.30,000/- only on instructions of complainant from his account to the account of Metlife on 19.02.2014 from where complainant purchased the policy in question. Complainant obtained the policy from OP-2 and 3 at his own and paid Rs.30,000/-on 24.02.2015 from his saving fund account. It is further averred that OP-1 did not know anything about the fate of policy and is not bound to return any amount to complainant. Complainant has not suffered any harassment or mental tension due to OP-1 as they have no role to play in the purchase of said policy by complainant from OP-2 and 3. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                             Ld Counsel for OP-2  and 3 also argued that present complaint is false, frivolous and it is filed with ulterior motive to avail undue advantage and brought before the Forum that complainant voluntarily applied for the policy in question for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowing about the terms and conditions of the same. Policy was issued to complainant on 24.02.2014 and thereafter, policy documents were issued to him on 25.02.2014  and even at the time of receipt of policy and policy documents, he did not raise any objection. He was also given free look period of 15 days, during which he was free to cancel the said policy, if he was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions of policy, but he did not do so. It is further averred that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of policy, complainant voluntarily filled up the proposal form on 19.02.2014 and himself offered to pay Rs.29,958/-yearly towards  premium under the said policy plan for sum assured of Rs.2,94,000/- and he also signed the Benefit Illustration Form for this policy and thus, he was fully aware of all terms and conditions of the policy in question. Complainant remitted only two premiums under the policy in question i.e total of Rs.59,209.42 and thereafter, failed to pay renewal premium due for 24.02.2016 and resultantly, the policy of complainant is now in lapsed mode. Since complainant has not paid the premiums for the first three years of policy, therefore, he is not entitled to seek any benefit under policy. Complainant is an educated person and it can not be believed that he did not go through the terms and conditions of policy before purchasing the same. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. He has stressed on documents Ex OP-2, 3/1 to 10.

11                                    We have heard the learned counsel for complainant as well as OP-1 to 3 and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by respective parties.

12                                   We have carefully scrutinized the record and have gone through the file and evidence placed on record. There are rival contentions of both the parties and in this case, it is observed that main contention of complainant is that he purchased an insurance policy from OP-2 and 3 and paid two annual premiums for same and now as he does not want to continue the same and therefore, he wants to get refund of premiums paid by him to OPs. In reply, OPs stressed that complainant has paid only two premiums and he even did not continue the premiums for first three years and therefore he is not liable to seek any refund. Allegations of complainant that said policy was fraudulently sold to him by OPs do not seem genuine as he himself deposited the amount towards premiums in the account of OP-2 and 3 at his own for two times. Moreover, admittedly when complainant received the Policy documents, he had knowledge regarding the Policy in question and regarding payment of annual payment of premium. There was a free look period of 15 days, if in case, he was not satisfied with the terms of the Policy, he could cancel the policy and could get refund of premium. But he did not avail this option. There also seems to be no role of OP-1 in the purchase of policy by complainant as he has purchased the said policy from OP-2 and 3 and they have transferred the amount of Rs.30,000/-from the account of complainant to the account of OP-2 and 3 only on the instructions given by complainant as OP-1 can not do so at his own. It is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. Keeping in view the particular circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 10.01.2017

                    Member                President    

                    (P Singla)             (Ajit Aggarwal)