Haryana

Karnal

CC/514/2021

Bajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, PNB Met Life - Opp.Party(s)

Kanwar Kailash Chauhan

15 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.514 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt. 20.09.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 15.10.2024

 

Baljinder Singh son of Shri Birsa Singh, resident of Ward No.1, Modern Colony, Safidon District Jind.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

The Branch Manager, PNB Metlife SCO No.223, Sector-12, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

                Mrs.Neeru Agarwal….Member        

        Mrs.Sarvjeet Kaur…..…..Member

 

Argued by: Sh. Kanwar Kailash Chauhan, counsel for

                   complainant.

                    Shri Vineet Rathore, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

 

ORDER:   

                

            The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant purchased Metlife Guaranteed Saving Policy bearing No.22729953 dated 26.11.2018 from the OP having sum assured of Rs.8,11,138/-. On the next year, the complainant got it renewed by depositing the second year premium of Rs.99,995.99 but to utter surprise, when the complainant received a letter dated 12.09.2020 by alleging that on inquiry, the OP has found that documents submitted by the complainant are not correct and directed the complainant to refurnish the documents. Thereafter, OP has issued letter dated 24.09.2020 to the complainant in which OP has stated that the said policy has been cancelled and deposited amount has been forfeited. Complainant approached the OP number of times to restore the policy or in the alternative to refund the amount deposited with interest but OP refused to do so. Hence, the present complaint.   

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; etc. On merits, it is pleaded that on acceptance of the proposal of complainant, wherein he has declared that he had duly provided true and accurate details after understanding the contents, he has signed the same and believing on details given by the complainant, the OP has issued policy to him. The OP had sent/dispatched the policy document dated 27.11.2018 via speed post to the communication address mentioned in the proposal form, which were duly delivered at the address. The OP company had conducted random applications/proposal in routine course of business to check out the profile and verify the credentials disclosed by the complainant in the proposal form. The OP has conducted the profile check investigation of the Life Assured and during investigation, it was revealed that address mentioned in the application form is incorrect and not traceable. Further the OP company had cogent reasons to believe that the representations/ declarations made by the complainant and the documents submitted by the complainant while availing the policy were incorrect/ false. Accordingly, the OP had sent letter dated 12.09.2020 to the complainant and called upon the complainant to submit the documents. Further, the OP had informed to the complainant that the risk under the policy is suspended from inception of policy and will only be revived post compliance of above requirements to the satisfaction of PNB MetLife. Even after providing due opportunity, the complainant failed to provide the documents. Accordingly, OP has sent the null and void letter dated 24.09.2020 and informed the complainant that insurance company considered the above action of complainant as an admission of the investigation findings and accordingly, the risk coverage in the subject policy stand cancelled as void ab initio. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of welcome letter dated 27.09.2018 Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 12.09.2020 Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C4, copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C4, copy of legal notice dated 18.03.2021 Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6, Acknowledgement Ex.C7, copy of account statement and closed the evidence on 12.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr.Sanchit Gupta, Manager as Ex.OP1/A, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP1, copy of agent declaration Ex.OP2, copy of proposal form Ex.OP3, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP4, copy of requirement letter dated 12.09.2020 Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 24.06.2020 Ex.OP6, copy of letter dated 18.11.2020 Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 22.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             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.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased insurance policy from the OP and next year got the same renewed by paying premium of Rs.99,995.99. The complainant received a letter dated 12.09.2020 by alleging that on inquiry, the OP has found that documents submitted by the complainant are not correct and directed the complainant to refurnish the documents. Thereafter, OP has issued letter dated 24.09.2020 to the complainant in which OP has stated that the said policy has been cancelled and amount deposited has been forfeited. He further argued that the complainant has submitted correct particulars and documents with the OP and the OP has very cleverly played game by alleging that complainant has furnished wrong particulars, only to deprive the right of the complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the policy from the OP. On investigation it has come to know that the complainant has submitted wrong particulars and accordingly, the complainant was directed to submit the particulars within a week but he failed to submit the same, thus, the policy has been cancelled and deposited amount has also been forfeited as per terms and conditions of the policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, on 26.11.2018, the complainant purchased policy in question from the OP for the sum assured of Rs.8,11,138/-. It is also admitted that the complainant had paid two installments of Rs.99,996/- each. It is also admitted that the policy in question has been cancelled by the OP on 24.09.2020.

11.           The policy in question has been cancelled by the OP on the ground that the complainant has furnished the incorrect address in the proposal form.

12.           The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, the complainant has relied upon the welcome letter Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 12.09.2020 Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 24.09.2020 Ex.C3 and copy of Aadhar Card of complainant Ex.C4. Above said letters have been delivered to the complainant on the address mentioned in the proposal form. Moreover, in the Aadhar Card also the address of the complainant is the same which was mentioned in the proposal form of the policy in question.

13.           The OP has also sent letter dated 12.09.2020 Ex.OP5, letter dated 24.09.2020 Ex.OP6 and letter dated 18.11.2020 Ex.OP7, to the complainant on the address mentioned in the policy which were duly delivered to the complainant. The OP also sent the policy documents dated 27.11.2018 via speed post on the said address which were duly delivered at the address mentioned in the proposal form on 12.12.2018. This fact has been mentioned in para No.3 (iii) of Preliminary Objections of the written version filed by the OP. Hence, it has been proved from the above documents that the complainant had provided the correct address to the OP.

14.           As per copy of Aadhar Card Ex.C4, the date of birth of the complainant is 03.02.1952 and at the time of commencement of policy the complainant was more than 67 years. It appears that the reason for cancellation of the policy is only the old age of the complainant. Furthermore, it was the duty of the OP to verify each and every particulars of their customers at the time of issuing of the policy.

15.           The complainant had paid two installments without any delay and when the third installment/premium was due in the month of November but OP has cancelled the policy in the month of September without any cogent and justified reason. It has been proved that the OP has cancelled the policy only on the unjustified ground just to escape from its future liability.  

16.          Further,  Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, has held as under:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

17.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in aforesaid judgment, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that act of the OP while cancelling the policy of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

18.           The complainant has paid two premiums of Rs.99,996/- each to the OP and the said premium has not been denied by the OP. Thus, the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,99,992/- (Rs.99,996x2) alongwith interest, compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses etc.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.1,99,992/- (Rs.One lac ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety two only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 20.09.2021 till its realization. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 15.10.2024

                                                                 President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Neeru Agarwal)                (Sarvjeet Kaur)

        Member                          Member