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. 21/2014
Sri Shyamalesh Chandra Chowdhury
S/o Late Biresh 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 he obtained a life insurance policy being numbered 1200800646708 for a period of three years on last 8.9.2008 from the OP Nos. 1 & 2. As per terms and conditions of the said policy he was agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.49,000/- per year as premium. Although, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- as premium of the policy for three consecutive years commencing from 8.9.2008 through Axis Bank of India, Balurghat Branch (OP No.3), but the OP Nos. 1 & 2 did not supply his policy deed. They assured him 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 he 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 he came to know that the policy premium had not been transferred before the OP Nos. 1 & 2 and for which he is/was not eligible for getting any benefit along with policy deed in respect of policy. Thereafter, he deposited premium receipts with the OP Nos. 1 & 2. He got such receipts from the OP No.3. Then OP Nos. 1 & 2 supplied the copy of policy deed to him in the month of June, 2013. After getting the policy deed he became astonished as premium paying period was mentioned as 40 years in the deed. According to the complainant, OP Nos. 1 & 2 have created such policy against his will with a view to cheat him as there is little chance of his survival at the end of such period. He 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 his benefit. It is the further case of the complainant that he visited the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for several times for returning back the invested amount of Rs.1,47,000/-, but no effect at all. Due to
Contd…P/3
such illegal activities on behalf of OP Nos. 1 & 2 he has suffered irreparable loss and injury. There is / was deficiency and negligence in rendering service on behalf of OPs. Hence, he has filed the instant case praying for giving direction upon the OPs to hand over invested amount of Rs.1,47,000/- together with interest and a sum of Rs.40,000/- 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 his 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 1200800646708 sum assured of Rs.4,90,000/- from them on last 8.9.2008. Premium paying period of such policy is / was for 40 years and premium amount is/was Rs.49,000/- 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 8.9.2009 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. Since the fund value was less than the surrender charges, no surrender amount is/was payable to the complainant. They did not receive any complaint regarding mis-selling of 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 his petition of complaint. It is the main contention of the OP No.3 (so far it can be gathered from the written statement) that the complainant purchased three demand drafts from it through his savings bank account in three different dates in favour of MetLife
Contd…P/4
Insurance Company Ltd. (OP Nos. 1 & 2) vide DD No. 7017 which was cleared on 2.9.2008 at Siliguri, DD No. 10590 which was cleared on 8.7.2010 at Siliguri and another DD being numbered 11059 which was cleared on 2.5.2011 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, 3, 3(a) & 3(b) 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 1200800646708 from the OP Nos. 1 & 2 on last 8.9.2008. It is the main contention of the complainant (so far it can be gathered from the petition of complaint as well as from his 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.49,000/-. He deposited a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- in total as premium of the policy in question for three consecutive years commencing from 8.9.2008 through Axis Bank of India, Balurghat Branch (OP No.3). The OP Nos. 1 & 2 only supplied his policy number at the time of obtaining the policy when OP Nos. 1 & 2
Contd…P/5
did not supply him policy deed and they assured him 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 he 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 he 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, he communicated with the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with premium receipts when they supplied him policy deed in the month of June, 2013. After getting the policy deed he became surprised as premium paying period was mentioned as 40 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 his will with a view to cheat him as there is/was little chance of his survival at the end of such period. He visited the office of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 for several times with a request to return back the amount of Rs.1,47,000/-, which was deposited by him 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 he obtained the policy on last 8.9.2008. Premium paying period of such policy is/was for 40 years and premium is/was Rs.49,000/- per annum. It is the further contention of the OP Nos. 1 & 2 that the complainant only paid first premium of Rs.49,000/- and he did not remit the payment towards premium due on 8.9.2009. Due to which the policy was lapsed.
Contd…P/6
Since the policy was not reinstated within the stipulated period, the policy was foreclosed on 29.9.2011. Since the fund value was less than the surrender charges, no surrender amount is /was payable to the complainant. 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 his 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 him. 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 his evidence as PW-1 that without going through the proposal form as well as other relevant documents he put his 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 his 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 he has read the proposal form and after fully understanding the contents thereof and also understanding the terms and conditions of the plan he 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 he deposited a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- in total as premium of the policy at Rs.49,000/- per year for a period of 3 consecutive years commencing from 8.9.2008. It is admitted position that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 49,000/- as first premium of the policy on 8.9.2008. Complainant did not file any document / paper to show that he paid the amount for next 2 premiums within the stipulated period. Complainant has stated in his evidence during cross-examination that he has not received any premium receipt. He 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 8.9.2009. 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. According to these OPs since the fund value was less than the surrender charges, no surrender amount is/was payable to the complainant. It is to be noted here that in the instant case no evidence is forthcoming from the side of the complainant to show that he received policy deed in the month of June, 2013 as stated by him in the petition of complaint.
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
Contd…P/8
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-
