Punjab

Sangrur

CC/578/2017

Sarvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.S.Ratol

02 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    578

                                                Instituted on:      01.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       02.05.2018

 

Sarvinder Singh son of Bhupinder Singh R/O Dashmesh Nagar, Patiala Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Branch Court Road (Gaushala Road), 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 Neeraj Kalra, Adv.

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

 

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

               

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Sarvinder 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 3477000100149464 with the OP number 1 for the last more than 15 years and has been visiting regularly to the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that in the last week of May, 2016, he visited bank to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the officials of the OP number 1 told the complainant that there is sufficient amount lying in the saving account of the complainant, so the complainant should deposit the same in the FDR which will fetch more interest.  As such, believing the advice of the officials of the Ops the complainant invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR and official of the Ops got signatures of the complainant on various printed performae for preparing the FDR.  The grievance of the complainant is that he was shocked when he received a call from the bank that next instalment of Rs.50,000/- is required to be deposited, as such he immediately approached the Ops, who intimated that a policy number 21912611 of OP number 2 has been issued for Rs.50,000/- premium which is yearly payable.  Further case of the complainant is that he never purchased such a policy nor he is able to pay such a huge amount of premium on yearly basis nor he is interested to have the policy any more. Further case of the complainant is that the OPs again deducted an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the account of the complainant on 3.6.2017 and in this way, the OPs have charged an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under two instalments. As such, the complainant requested the Ops to refund the amount of  Rs.1,00,000/- so deposited with the OPs, which was not refunded despite his best efforts. 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.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it has been denied that the OP number 1 allured the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- for fetching more interest. It has been denied that the policy in question was issued to the complainant without apprising the conditions of the policy and giving consent for issuing the policy signed on the policy form, which was written by officials of the OP number 2 and the form was read over to the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and with malafide intention and nothing but an abuse of process of law, that the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it is stated that the complainant could get the policy cancelled within the free look period of 15 days, if it was not suitable to the complainant.  It is stated further that the complainant applied voluntarily for issuance of the insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- for year after submitting the proposal form.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 documents and affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with Annexure OP-1 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.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we are 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.50,000/- as sufficient amount was lying in his saving bank account, but the OP number 1 invested the amount in a single insurance policy of OP number 2 instead of preparing the FDR, but no FDR was issued to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant only came to know when he received a call from the OP number 2 to deposit the second instalment of Rs.50,000/- and the same was also deducted by OP number 1 from the saving bank account and paid to the OP number 2 at his own without any consent of the complainant.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that he never received any such policy, but the fact remains that the Op number 1 intimated the complainant that policy number 21912611 of OP number 2 has been issued. 

 

8.             In written reply of the OP number 1 and 2 it is mentioned that if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then he would have cancelled the policy within 15 days free look period as has been mentioned in the policy.         Since it is the allegation of the complainant that he never received the policy in question, as such cancellation of the policy within free look period does not arise at all nor the OP number 2 has produced any documentary evidence to support such a contention that the policy in question was sent/delivered to the complainant.

 

9.             It is admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the Ops and had approached the OP number 1 for deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR in his favour, but the OP number 1 wrongly deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- in the policy which was having a premium term of 30 years meaning thereby the complainant took the policy at the age of 72 years and will pay the premium upto the age of 102 years, as is evident from the copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-8 produced on record by the learned counsel for the complainant.  It clearly shows that the policy in question was done at the instance of OPs number 1 and 2 at their own and without the consent of the complainant.  Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that a person at the age of 72 years will not chose to purchase the policy for long period of 30 years.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the Op number 1 at its own got issued the policy in question from the Op number 2 instead of FDR and further at own deducted the instalment of Rs.50,000/- at its own without any written consent or otherwise of the complainant. The Op number 1 has not produced any documentary evidence or consent on record to show that the complainant ever allowed OP number 1 to issue the policy and further to pay the instalment of Rs.50,000/- to the OP number 2.  

 

10.            Further the learned counsel for the OP number 1 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. Since the policy in question was not sent to the complainant then the question of its cancellation does not arise at all.  Further the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence to show that the policy in question was ever delivered to the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 1 and 2 that why they did not produce such evidence, which is very much necessary for the just decision of the case.  Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited versus Preeti Prasad 2015(3) CPJ 551, wherein it has been held that there is no question of availing free look period of 15 days and complainant cannot be bound by the terms and conditions of the policy document, when the same was not proved to be delivered to the complainant.  In such circumstances, it was held that clause of cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days cannot be implemented, when the policy document was not delivered to the complainant.

 

 

11.            In view of the facts mentioned above, we find that the OPs number 1 and 2 are not only deficient in service, but also indulged in unfair trade practice and as such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP number 2 to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.11.2017 till realisation. Further we direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

 

12.            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.

                May 2, 2018.

                                                       

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                        Presiding Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member