Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/61

Sri Anil Chakarborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director Met Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. And Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. P. Chakraborty

29 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC- 61 of 2014

    Sri Anil Chakraborty,
     S/o- Late Khirod Ch. Chakraborty,
     T.K. Road, Desh Bandhu Palli,
     District- Khowai.            ...........Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

1. The Director,
Met Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.
Customer Service and Operations,
Having its registered office-
Brigade Seshmahal, 5 Vani Vilas Road,
Basavana Gudi, 
Bengalore- 560004.    

2.  The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd., 
Agartala Branch,
West Tripura. 

3.  The Manager,
Met Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its registered office-
Brigade Seshmahal, 5 Vani Vilas Road, 
Basavana Gudi, 
Bengalore- 560004. 

4. The Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Agartala Branch,
West Tripura.        .........Opposite Parties.
            

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Sri Pradip Chakraborty and
                  Sri Sujit Chakraborty,
                  Advocates. 
                           
For the OP. No. 1 & 3    : Sri Swarup Pandit, 
                  Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 2        : Mrs. Pushpita Chakraborty,
                  Advocate.

For the O.P. No. 4        : None appeared.
                    

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   29.08.15

J U D G M E N T     
            This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Sri Anil Chakraborty of Deshbandhu Palli, District- Khowai against the O.Ps namely, The Director, Met Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. and 3 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.
2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had taken an insurance policy No- 20022439 under the product name 'Met Advantage Plus' for the sum assured Rs.1,57,633/- with annual premium of Rs.25000/-. Date of commencement of the policy was 31.05.2009 and the date of maturity was 31.05.2014. The complainant paid the first premium of Rs.25,000/- at the time of taking the policy. The complainant made payment of the premiums regularly for the 5 years sometimes through the Axis Bank Ltd., Agartala Branch and sometimes through Branch Office of Met Life Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. On maturity of the policy, the complainant submitted all the documents to the O.Ps but they did not pay the matured value to him. The complainant wrote several letters to the O.Ps on 28.05.14, 24.06.14 and lastly on 26.06.14 requesting them to settle the claim but they did not respond to his letters. Hence, this complaint.
3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps No.1, 2 and 3 by filing written objections.
        The O.Ps No.1 and 3 in their joint written objection have controverted the claim of the complainant stating, interalia, that the policy in question was matured on 31.05.14. On maturity, the complainant was asked to submit Annuity Vesting Request form vide letter dated 17.06.14. The complainant failed to submit the said Annuity Vesting Request form due to which the answering O.Ps could not process the claim as it is a mandatory requirement to process the benefit. Due to non submission of Annuity Vesting Request form by the complainant the maturity value of the policy amounting to Rs.1,57,633/- is still lying in suspense account. It is denied that the O.Ps No.1 and 3 were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

4.        The O.P. No.2 Axis Bank, Agartala Branch, in their written objection, has asserted that they have been unnecessarily made party to this proceeding. The O.P. No.2 was only the facilitator. The policy of insurance was issued by the O.P. No.1 and 3. They are in no way liable to pay the matured amount of the policy to the complainant.

5.        Since the O.P. No.4 did not contest the case, the case has been proceeded exparte against them.

6.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-
    Exhibit 1 Series - Copies of letter (5 sheets),
    Exhibit 2 Series- 3 number of E-mails,
    Exhibit 3- Copy of policy of insurance, 
    Exhibit 4- Copy of policy log in letter dated 20.06.14.
        
7.        On the other hand, no evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the O.Ps.

        FINDINGS:-
8.             The points that would arise for consideration in this case is;
        (i) Whether the O.Ps were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

9.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant meticulously.

10.        The admitted position in this case is that the complainant invested money with the O.Ps No.1 and 3 under the product name 'Met Advantage Plus' with yearly premium of Rs.25,000/- for a paying term of 5 years.  The number of the policy is 20022439. The complainant paid annual premiums as per terms of the policy continuously for 5 years. The policy was matured on 31.05.09. 
        As per pleadings, the case of the parties centered around mainly on the claim and counter claim of submission and non-submission of Annuity Vesting Request Form. 

11.        It is the plea of the O.Ps No.1 and 3 that the complainant did not submit Annuity Vesting Request Form, which is mandatory to process the claim, though he was specifically asked to submit the same. Due to non-submission of Annuity Vesting Request Form the matter could not be processed, for which the  amount of Rs.1,57,633/- is still lying in suspense account.
12.        On the other hand, the complainant in his pleadings as well as examination in chief by way of affidavit, controverted the plea of the O.Ps No.1 and 3 saying that he made several correspondence with the O.Ps for settlement of the claim. He submitted all the required documents to the O.P. No.1 to settle the claim. He was never asked by the O.P. No.1 to submit Annuity Vesting Request Form duly filled in. He further went on saying that on maturity of the policy, the O.Ps No.1 and 3 never dispatched the Annuity Vesting Request Form to him to resubmit the same duly filled in to enable them to process the matter.

13.        There is absolutely no document on record to substantiate the plea of the O.Ps No.1 and 3 that, on maturity of the policy, they sent the Annuity Vesting Request Form to the complainant. The O.Ps No.1 and 3 have not led any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the complainant. Until contrary is proved, we are to rely upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. The averment made by the O.Ps No.1 and 3 in their pleadings that the claim could not be processed for want of duly filled in Annuity Vesting Request form has remained unproved. Mere assertion made in the pleading is not sufficient to prove their plea. The O.Ps No. 1 and 3 have not made any attempt to translate their plea taken in their pleading into evidence. In absence of any clear and cogent evidence in this regard we are unable to accept the contention of the O.Ps No.1 and 3 that they sent Annuity Vesting Request Form to the complainant on maturity of the policy and they could not process the claim for want of such document. 

14.        It is the matter of pain that the policy was matured in the year 2009, but the O.Ps No.1 and 3 have ailed to settle the claim as yet for no fault of the complainant. It is needless to say that non-settlement of the claim within a reasonable time without justifiable cause amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps No.1 and 3. In this situation, the O.Ps No.1 and 3 are to be burdened with liability to compensate the complainant for causing undue delay  in settling the claim.

15.        On perusal of the complaint it is found that the O.P. No.2 was the corporate agent/facilitator of O.Ps No.1 and 3 and the O.P. Met Life Insurance Co. Ltd. subsequently merged with the O.P. no.4, Punjab  National Bank Met Life. That being so, they can not have any role in the matter of settlement of the claim. As it appears, the complainant leveled all the allegations against the O.Ps No.1 and 3 not against the other O.Ps. In this view of the matter, the O.Ps No.2 and 4 are discharged from the liability of the claim preferred by the complainant.

16.            In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.Ps No.1 and 3 are directed to pay the matured value of the policy amounting to Rs.1,57,633/-(Rupees One lakh fifty seven thousand six hundred thirty three) with interest @ 6% P.A. from the date of maturity of the policy on 31.05.14 within 1(one) month from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable to the complainant will carry interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of maturity till the payment is made in full. The said O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment together with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) as costs of litigation.        
17.                   A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.