District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal
(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)
Telefax: (03522)-270013
Present
Shri P. K. Chakraborty - President
Miss. Swapna Saha - Member
Consumer Complaint No. 20/2014
Smt. Nilima Chowdhury
W/o Sri Shyamalesh Chandra Chowdhury
Of Dakshin Chakbhabani, Ghosh Para,
PO & PS : Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur …………………Complainant(s)
V-E-R-S-U-S
1. The Branch Manager,
MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd.
Top Plaza, 2nd Floor Sevok Road, Siliguri
West Bengal – 734001.
2. The Branch Manager,
MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd.
Malda Branch, Having Office at
3. The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank of India, Balurghat Branch,
Having Office at Chakbhabani Rathtala,
PO & PS : Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.
4. The Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Balurghat Branch,
Having Office at Chakbhabani (Near LICI Balurghat Branch),
PO & PS : Balurghat
Dist.: Dakshin Dinajpur. …………………Opposite Party / Parties
For complainant …………… - Shri Samit Bhowmick, Ld. Adv.
For OP Nos.1 & 2 …………… - Humayun Kabir, Ld. Adv.
For OP No.3 …………… - Shri Santanu Dey, Ld. Adv.
For OP No.4 …………… - None
Date of Filing : 04.06.2014
Date of Disposal : 19.03.2015
Contd…P/2
Judgment & Order dt. 19.03.2015
In brief, case of the complainant / petitioner is that as per advice and suggestion of the representative of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 she obtained a life insurance policy being numbered 1200800653962 for a period of three years on last 17.9.2008 from the OP Nos. 1 & 2. As per terms and conditions of the said policy she was agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.26,000/- per year as premium. Although, she deposited a sum of Rs.78,000/- as premium of the policy for three consecutive years commencing from 17.9.2008 through Axis Bank of India, Balurghat Branch (OP No.3), but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not supply her policy deed. They assured her that policy deed would be supplied at the end of three years i.e. after full payment of the premium of the policy in question. After lapse of 3 years i.e. after maturity of the policy in question she visited the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for getting policy amount including other benefits against such policy as well as policy deed, when she came to know that the policy premium had not been transferred before the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and for which she is/was not eligible for getting any benefit along with policy deed in respect of policy. Thereafter, she deposited premium receipts with the OP Nos. 1 & 2. She got such receipts from the OP No.3. Then OP Nos. 1 & 2 supplied the copy of policy deed to her in the month of June, 2013. After getting the policy deed she became astonished as premium paying period was mentioned as 47 years in the deed. According to the complainant, OP Nos. 1 & 2 have created such policy against her will with a view to cheat her as there is little chance of her survival at the end of such period. She deposited the amount for three years as a short term deposit, but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 used the same for their own wrongful gain and business and not for her benefit. It is the further case of the complainant that she visited the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for several times for returning back the invested amount of Rs.78,000/-, but no effect at all. Due to such illegal activities on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2
Contd…P/3
she has suffered irreparable loss and injury. There is / was deficiency and negligence in rendering service on behalf of OPs. Hence, she has filed the instant case praying for giving direction upon the OPs to hand over invested amount of Rs.78,000/- together with interest and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 have contested the present case by filing a written statement inter-alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in her petition of complaint. It is the main contention of the OP No.1 & 2 (so far it can be gathered from their written statement) that completely understanding the terms and conditions of their product “Met Smart Plus” complainant obtained the policy being numbered 1200800653962 sum assured of Rs.2,60,000/- from them on last 17.9.2008. Premium paying period of such policy is / was for 47 years and premium amount is/was Rs.26,000/- per annum. It is the further case of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant did not remit the payment towards the premium due on 17.9.2009 and due to which the policy was lapsed. Since the policy was not reinstated within the stipulated period, the policy was foreclosed on 29.9.2011. The foreclosure amount of Rs.2,218.52 was paid to the complainant vide cheque No.925921 dt. 7.11.2011. Complainant did not present the cheque for clearance and the amount is lying in suspense account. On 9.2.2013 they received request from the complainant to surrender the policy. On the basis of her request the foreclosure amount lying in suspense account was paid to the complainant through NEFT vide, UTR No.CITIN13311718272 on 21.2.2013. They did not receive any complaint regarding mis-selling of the policy till date. Present case is malafide one. So, these OPs prayed for dismissal of the case.
OP No.3 has contested the present case by filing a separate written statement inter alia denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in her petition of complaint. It is the main contention of
Contd…P/4
the OP No.3 (so far it can be gathered from the written statement) that the complainant purchased two demand drafts from it through her savings bank account in two different dates in favour of MetLife Insurance Company Ltd. (OP Nos. 1 & 2) vide DD No. 7018, which was cleared on 3.9.2008 at Siliguri and another DD being numbered 11060, which was cleared on 2.2.2011 at Siliguri by ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Siliguri Branch. There is / was no any negligence on its behalf for rendering service to the complainant. So, this OP prayed for dismissal of the case.
Present case heard on ex-parte against OP No.4.
To prove the respective case complainant alone has been examined as PW-1. Documents as per list have been marked as Exts. 1 & 2 respectively. On the other hand, no witness has been examined on behalf of OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3, but these OPs have filed certain documents.
From the materials on record we have come to the following finding.
FINDING WITH REASONS
Before passing this judgement we have carefully perused the petition of complaint, written statements, evidence of the witness and the other materials on record. It is admitted position that the complainant obtained a life insurance policy being numbered 1200800653962 from the OP Nos. 1 & 2 on last 17.9.2008. It is the main contention of the complainant (so far it can be gathered from the petition of complaint as well as from her evidence as PW-1) that the premium paying period of such policy is/was for three years and premium amount per annum is / was Rs.26,000/-. She deposited a sum of Rs.78,000/- in total as premium of the policy in question for three consecutive years commencing from 17.9.2008 through Axis Bank of India, Balurghat Branch (OP No.3). The OP Nos. 1 & 2 only supplied her policy number at the time of obtaining the policy when OP Nos. 1 &
Contd…P/5
2 did not supply her policy deed and they assured her that policy deed would be supplied at the end of three years i.e. after full payment of the premium of the policy in question. It is the further contention of the complainant that after 3 years she visited office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for getting policy amount including all other benefits as well as policy deed and OP Nos. 1 & 2 disclosed that she is / was not eligible for getting benefit of the policy as well as policy deed as the policy premium had not been transferred at their office. Ultimately, she communicated with the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with premium receipts when they supplied her policy deed in the month of June, 2013. After getting the policy deed she became surprised as premium paying period was mentioned as 47 years in the deed instead of 3 (three) years. It is alleged by the complainant that the policy in question has been created by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 against her will with a view to cheat her as there is/was little chance of her survival at the end of such period. She visited the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for several times with a request to return back the amount of Rs.78,000/-, which was deposited by her against the policy in question, but no effect at all.
OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not support the above contention of the complainant. It is the main contention of these OPs (so far it can be gathered from their written statement as well as from the other materials on record) that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of their product “Met Smart Plus” complainant applied for the policy and she obtained the policy on last 17.9.2008. Premium paying period of such policy is/was for 47 years and premium is/was Rs.26,000/- per annum. It is the further contention of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant only paid first premium of Rs.26,000/- and she did not remit the payment towards premium due on 17.9.2009. Due to which the policy was lapsed. Since the policy was not reinstated within the stipulated period, the policy was foreclosed on 29.9.2011. The foreclosure amount of Rs.2,218.52 was paid to the complainant vide
Contd…P/6
cheque no. 925921 dt. 7.11.2011. As the complainant did not present the cheque for clearance, the same is / was lying in suspense account. On 9.2.2013 they received request from the complainant to surrender the policy. On the basis of such request foreclosure amount lying in suspense account was paid to the complainant through NEFT vide UTR No.CITIN13311718272 on 21.2.2013. They did not receive any complaint regarding mis-selling of the policy till date.
Now we will consider how far the complainant has been able to prove her case. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel on behalf of the complainant submitted before us that the policy in question was created by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 against will of the complainant with a view to cheat her. There is nothing in the materials on record by which it can be said that without going through the contents of the proposal form and the other relevant documents complainant signed the same. Moreover, complainant did not state in the petition of complaint as well as in her evidence as PW-1 that without going through the proposal form as well as other relevant documents she put her signature in the same. There is also nothing in the materials on record by which it can be said that the policy in question was created by the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with a view to cheat the complainant. On the other hand, it is clearly evident from the documents as submitted on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant obtained the policy voluntarily after understanding the terms and conditions of such policy and after putting her signature on the relevant papers. It is clearly seen that the complainant gave a declaration in the proposal form after signing to the effect that she has read the proposal form and after fully understanding the contents thereof and also understanding the terms and conditions of the plan she has applied for the same. So, it was rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant is estopped challenging the terms and conditions of the policy in question.
Contd…P/7
We have already stated above that it is the main contention of the complainant that she deposited a sum of Rs.78,000/- in total as premium of the policy at Rs.26,000/- per year for a period of 3 consecutive years commencing from 17.9.2008. To prove the same no paper / document is forthcoming from side of the complainant. She has only filed xerox-copy of a receipt dated 18.9.2008, from which it is seen that she paid a sum of Rs.26,000/- on last 18.9.2008 as first premium of the policy. She did not file any document / paper to show that she paid the amount for next 2 premiums. Complainant has stated in her evidence during cross-examination on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 that she has not received any premium receipt. She has clearly stated in the application dated 28.6.2013 addressing to the OP Nos. 1 & 2 (vide Ext.2) that premium amount for the second and third year was not deposited in their office. So, it was again rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel on behalf of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the policy was lapsed as the complainant did not remit the payment towards the premium due on 17.9.2009. It was the further contention of the Ld. Counsel that the policy was not reinstated within the stipulated period, for which the same was foreclosed on 29.9.2011. Foreclosure amount of Rs.2,218.52 was paid to the complainant vide cheque No.925921 dated 7.11.2011. The said cheque is / was lying in suspense account as the complainant did not present the same for clearance. It is the further case of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant surrendered the policy in question. So, foreclosure amount lying in suspense account was paid to her through NEFT vide UTR No. CITIN13311718272 on 21.2.2013. Complainant has clearly admitted the above contention of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 in her application dt. 28.6.2013 (vide Ext.2) by saying that she has surrendered her policy on 6.2.2013 and she has already received foreclosure amount of Rs.2,218/-. It is to be noted here that in the instant case no evidence is forthcoming from the side of the complainant to show that she received policy deed in the month of June, 2013 as stated by her in the petition of complaint.
Contd…P/8
Judging in the light of our above observation and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are inclined to hold that there is/was no deficiency and negligence in rendering service on behalf of the OPs in the instant case and as such, the case must fail.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the instant petition of complaint is dismissed on contest against the OP Nos. 1, 2 & 3. The same is also dismissed on ex-parte against the OP No.4
Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
Dictated & corrected
………Sd/-….…….
(P. K. Chakraborty)
President
I concur,
……Sd/-..……
(S. Saha)
Member
- Date when free copy was issued ……………………
- Date of application for certified copy ……………………
- Date when copy was made ready ……………………
- Date of delivery ……………………
FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]
- Mode of dispatch ……………………
- Date of dispatch ……………………
-x-
