Haryana

Karnal

CC/131/2020

Usha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Kapoor

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 131 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.28.02.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:02.07.2024

 

Usha Rani wife of late Shri Sanjay Kumar, resident of H.No.18/16-17, Ram Nagar, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Punjab National Bank 322-323, Mugal Canal, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

2.     D.G.M. (Circle Head), Punjab National Bank, Karnal, Bay No.21-22, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana 132001.

3.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, SCO 223, Sector-12, Karnal 132001, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

        Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

        Dr. Suman Singh……….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Somesh Garg, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for OP No.3.

 

                  (Dr.Suman Singh, Member)

 

ORDER:  

 

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that Sanjay Kumar husband of complainant had availed Educational Loan for his son Prashant Arora from the OP No.1 to the tune of Rs.3,68,000/- including insurance premium of Rs.17,000/- (once). The said loan was to be repaid in 120 EMIs of Rs.7028/- each after commencement of repayment w.e.f. course period + 1 year or 6 months after getting job, whichever is earlier. Said loan was insured by OP No.1 from OP No.3. Official of OPs had assured that in case if during the period of said loan, the husband of complainant expires then in that eventuality, the entire loan amount would be repaid by the OP No.3. Husband of complainant was regularly paying the payment of installments i.e. Rs.5100/- each but unfortunately, he expired on 07.01.2019. Intimation in this regard was given to OP No.1 alongwith requisite documents with the requests to waive off the balance loan but despite repeated request the loan was not waived off by the OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared. OPs No.1 & 2 filed their joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; estoppels; locus standi; concealment of true and material facts; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that Sanjay Arora and Prashant Arora had availed education loan of Rs.3,68,000/- for higher studies including first insurance premium of Rs.17,000/-. After the death of Sanjay Arora, on the intimation given by the complainant, the OP no.1 immediately forwarded the request of complainant to OP No.3 for necessary action but Op no.3 repudiated the claim of complainant vide its letter dated 19.02.2020 issued to Prashant Arora on the ground that policy was in lapse condition at the time of death of insured and that policy was different from that to be taken for Education Loan. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and as such, the same deserve dismissal on this ground. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.3 filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; etc. On merits, it is pleaded that Sanjay Kumar has submitted with the OP, a proposal form alongwith signed Customer Declaration Form on 15.06.2013, for purchase of life insurance policy, accordingly the policy was issued to him and sent the policy documents to the communication address mentioned in the proposal form on 10.07.2023 through speed post which were duly delivered at the address provided in the proposal form. The policy holder has only paid the initial premium and failed to pay the second premium and accordingly, the OP has sent the renewal premium notice on 17.05.2014 for premium amount of Rs.12,000/- due on 17.06.2014. However, even after the due opportunity being granted the policy holder failed to deposit the premium amount and consequently, the insurance company was left with no option, policy payment notice had sent on 31.8.2014 stating the grace period of paying the premium was expired on 17.07.2014 and company urged to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- at the earliest to reinstate the policy and continue availing policy benefits. Inspite of having knowledge and after due opportunity, the policy holder has failed to deposit the amount of premium and accordingly the policy was foreclosed on 14.08.2014. The OP was surprised on receiving the letter from PNB on 03.02.2020 which as received on 15.02.2020 regarding the subject policy stating that the policy holder has expired on 07.01.2019 and requesting the current status of policy, accordingly, the OP has sent the letter dated 19.02.2020 to the nominee regarding the actual position of not paying the premium of insurance policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of sanction letter Ex.C1, copy of application dated 10.01.2020 Ex.C2, copy of application dated 19.0.2019 Ex.C3, copy of statement of accounts Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 and copy of death certificate Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 08.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Manish Bishla,Manager, PNB Mugal Canal Ex.OP1/A, copy of anction letter Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account Ex.OP2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 08.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Devendra Verma, Manager PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ex.OP3/A, copy of power of attorney Ex.R1, copy of CDF Ex.R2, copy of proposal form Ex.R3, copy of welcome letter Ex.R4, copy of renewal premium notice Ex.R5, copy of policy payment notice Ex.R6, copy of premium discontinuance notice Ex.R7, copy of letter dated 03.02.2020 Ex.R8, copy of letter dated 19.02.2020 Ex.R9, copy of application of substitute Ex.R10 and closed the evidence on 12.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that the husband of complainant obtained education loan for his son from the OP No.1 and also obtained a insurance policy from the OP No.3 for securing the said loan. The loan amount was being repaid by the husband of complainant regularly but unfortunately on 07.01.2019 the husband of the complainant has expired. Due intimation in this regard was given to OP No.1 alongwith requisite documents with the request to waive off the balance loan but despite repeated request the loan was not waived off by the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written versions, have vehemently argued that Sanjay Arora and Prashant Arora had availed education loan of Rs.3,68,000/- for higher studies including first insurance premium of Rs.17,000/-. Accordingly the premium was paid to the OP No.3, thereafter, it was the husband of complainant who was liable to pay the premium of policy but the husband of complainant despite repeated reminders did not pay the premium of the policy, accordingly the same was closed. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any benefit of the policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           The complainant has alleged that husband of complainant has obtained a education loan for his son Prashant Arora for an amount of Rs.3,68,000/- including premium of insurance policy and for securing the loan amount, the OP No.1 purchased an insurance policy from OP No.3 on behalf of husband of complainant and paid premium amount of Rs.17,000/- which was one time premium of the policy. The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has failed to prove her case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has not placed on file copy of policy purchased by her husband or any other documents with regard to the policy in question from which it can be ascertained that husband of complainant has ever purchased insurance policy to secure the education loan obtained by him for his son.  On the other hand, the OPs have alleged that the husband of the complainant had purchased two life insurance policies one for himself and another for his son. The premium of the policy which was obtained by husband of complainant to the tune of Rs.12000/- per annum and the premium of the policy which was purchased for the son of complainant was to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per annum. The premium was to be paid for ten years but after paying the first installment of Rs.12,000/- to Metlife Insurance for Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Rs.5000/- to Metlife Insurance for Mr. Prashant son of Sanjay Kumar, no premium was paid and due to non deposition of premium by the husband of complainant for second year the policy had expired. To prove its version the OP No.3 has placed on file Customer Declaration Form Ex.R2 and form Ex.R3 and both the forms were duly signed by the husband of the complainant. From these documents, it is proved that the husband of the complainant had obtained life insurance policy for fifteen years  and premium was to be paid for ten years. From the renewal premium notice Ex.R5 and policy payment notices Ex.R6 and Ex.R7, it has also been proved that despite reminders to the husband of complainant, he failed to pay the premium of the insurance policy for second year, therefore, the same was closed by the OP No.3.

 13.          From the documents placed on file by the OPs, it has been proved that the policies which were purchased by the husband of complainant for himself as well as his son were life insured policies, rather than loan secured policies.  Since, the policies which were purchased by the husband of the complainant from the OP No.3, was not for the purpose of securing the education loan, rather the same were life insurance policies but that also expired due to non deposition of premiums. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs while denying the claim of complainant.  

14         Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.07.2024

                                                                    President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member