DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                        Complaint No. 162

Instituted on:    05.04.2018

                                                                        Decided on:      15.03.2019

Ritu Rani wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of H.No.92, Ward No.8, Mohalla Ambedkar Nagar, Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     Punjab National Bank, Branch Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.     PNB Met Life Insurance Company Limited, 5 Brigade Sehsmahal Van Vilas Road, Basavangudi, Banglore through its Managing Director.

3.     Jyoti wife of Jatinder Singh alias Kala, resident of Patti Randhawa, Near Subedar Di Dairy, Longowal, Tehsil & District Sangrur, Authorized Agent of PNB Met Life Insurance Company Limited.

             ….Opposite parties

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:         Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&3 :           Exparte.      

FOR OP NO.2                      :          Shri Azadwinder Ashta, Advocate.

Quorum

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

ORDER:   

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

1.             Smt. Ritu Rani, 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 0754000101113988 with the OP number 1, so on 17.6.2016 the complainant went to OP number 1 to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in the shape of FDR, who advised to consult OP number 3 being the authorized agent of OP number 2.  The complainant is an illiterate lady but knows only to sign in Hindi language.  The OP number 3 got the signatures of the complainant on number of blank papers for preparing the FDR.  It is further averred that when the complainant visited the OP number 1 to draw some amount from her account, then she came to know that an amount of Rs.49,098.18 has been deducted, as such, the complainant inquired the matter, then OP number  1 told the complainant that the above amount has been deducted being the premium of one PNB Met Lie Insurance policy in her name and he further told that the amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been deducted on 17.6.2016 against premium.  The complainant was surprised and requested the OP number 1 that she never purchased any insurance policy and intimated that she got prepared the FDR for Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant further requested the OP number 1 that she has not received any policy from the OPs, rather requested for refund of the total amount of Rs.99,098/-, but nothing happened. The complainant also issued a registered letter, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.99,098/- along with interest and  further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that Ops number 1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint, that the complainant was duly informed that in case she is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, she can withdraw/cancel the policy under the free look period provision. Further that the OP was in receipt of a duly signed and filled proposal form from the complainant for issuance of an insurance policy on her life as per details.  On merits, it is stated that the OP number 2  cannot be held liable for any misconduct of the Ops number 1 and 3 and it is stated that OP number 3 is an independent agent whose working is not covered under the insurance company.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced documents Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  No written arguments have been filed by the parties.

6.             It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is having her saving account with Op no.1 and visited Op no.1 on 17-06-2016 to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in shape of FDR. But the OP number 3 instead of depositing the amount in the shape of FDR adjusted an amount of Rs.50,000/- each in PNB met life insurance policy number 21926257 without the consent of the complainant and the above amount was deducted from the account of the complainant on 17-06-2016 twice and the complainant came to know about the policy on 07-07-2017. In the written argument the Op no.2 have submitted that the policy documents for the subject cited policies were dispatched to the life Insured on 06.07.2016 through Blue Dart POD No. 40806774411 but the same was returned undelivered. No document in this support of this statement has been tendered on the file. Further the Op has submitted that the complainant failed to approach company within free look period in case she is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, she can withdraw/ Cancel the policy under the free look period prevision i.e. within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy documents.  It is pertinent to mention here that how the complainant could approach the company within the free look period for withdrawal/Cancellation of the policy when the complainant did not receive the policy document.  Further the OP has contended that the complainant had signed the proposal form in English and a diligent person which fact has not been disputed by the complainant. Hence, the complainant was comfortably place to read and understand the content of the proposal, consequent to which complainant had submitted a declaration in proposal form of being understood terms and conditions of the policy. The OP has not submitted a single document in support of their written statement. Even the copy of the policy along with the terms and condition supplied to the complainant as alleged in the written arguments has been placed on record by the OP. We are of the view that the Ops induced into unfair trade practice and diverted the funds of the complainant to their benefit.

7.             In the sequel of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the Ops are directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.99,098/-  besides that the complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. Liability of the awarded amount shall be joint and several of the OPs. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days on the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to receive the awarded amount along with the interest @ 9% p.a. for the date of filing the complaint till its full realization. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to records.

    Pronounced.

                March 15, 2019.

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                  Presiding  Member

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                          Member