Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/79/2023

SMT CHANDER KALA DEHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER PNB MET LIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/79/2023
Date of Institution	:	11/02/2023
Date of Decision	:	26/09/2024

       

                                       

                       

 

 

 

Smt. Chander Kala Dehra, aged 83 years wife of Shri Raghbir Rai Dehra, resident of House No.1102, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant

Versus

1.The Manager, PNB Met life India Insurance Company, SCO No.68-69, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh.

2.PNB MetLife India Insurance Company, (Formerly known as MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd.), First floor, Techni plex, Complex No-1, Off Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400062 (Maharashtra) through its Managing Director.

3.Shri Parhlad Singh Thakur, Advisor Manager, PNB Met Life India Insurance Company, SCO No.68-69, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh.

4.Ajay Sharma C/o Prahalad Singh Thakur Advisor Manager, PNB Met life, SCO No.68-69, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-
	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	Sh. Ankit Sharma, Adv. Proxy counsel for Sh.Mandeep Kumar, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	OPs 3 & 4 ex-parte.

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The complainant has filed the present consumer complaint alleging that on 27.4.2021 OP-4, by presenting himself as Manager of OPs 1 & 2, visited her residence and impressed her and her husband to invest money and buy policy of OPs 1 & 2. He assured minimum guaranteed returns @10.25% p.a. and after 46 months @ 11.15% per annum. Accordingly, complainant agreed to buy policy from the OPs for a period of three years @ ₹3.00 lacs premium annually and signed the declaration form and paid the premium amount of ₹3.00 lacs by way of cheque on 27.4.2021.  However, on 18.5.2021, when the complainant received policy dated 14.5.2021 (Annexure C-4), she found that the same was for 12 years and also noticed other defects. The complainant immediately contacted OP-4 regarding mis-selling of policy and on 22.5.2021 he visited and received the policy back with the request to issue fresh corrected policy. However, despite sending WhatsApp messages to OP-4 and writing letters, email as well as sending legal notice to OPs, same policy was again delivered on 7.7.2022. Left with no alternative, complainant requested the OPs to refund the deposited amount alongwith interest but to no avail. The complainant has averred that she is 83 years old and therefore, practically the policy could not have been issued to her for 12 years. Alleging that the acts of mis-selling the policy and thereafter not acknowledging the return of policy within the free look period of 15 days amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint for acceptance of the same.
2.        In their written version OPs 1 & 2 did not dispute that the policy in question was issued to complainant upon her signing declaration for submission of e-application. It is also not disputed that cheque dated 27.4.2021 for ₹3.00 lacs was received from the complainant towards premium payment of the said policy. It is averred that the OPs received proposal from the complainant wherein she proposed for life insurance in the name of her daughter Renu Verma and the detail of policy plan, policy term & paying premium terms were duly mentioned in the proposal form. The policy contract was executed only after submission of signed proposal form by the complainant. It is maintained that the request of complainant for refund of premium amount could not be acceded as the same was not within the free look period of 15 days. The remaining allegations have been denied being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.        Despite due service, OPs 3 & 4 did not put in appearance before this Commission and accordingly they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.3.2023.
4.        The contesting parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        In replication, complainant controverted the stand of contesting OPs and reiterated her own.
6.        We have heard learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
7.        Admittedly OPs 1 & 2 had issued the policy in question i.e. “PNB MetLife Super Saver Plan” to the complainant having annual premium of ₹3,00,000/- and premium paying term of 12 years. 
8.        The case of the complainant is that she had agreed to purchase the policy in question only for a period of three years and as soon as she came to know that the same had been issued for 12 years, she immediately i.e. within free look period, requested the OPs through OP-4 to issue the fresh corrected policy. On the other hand, defence of the OPs is that the policy contract was executed only after submission of signed proposal form by the complainant and her request for refund of premium amount could not be acceded, being not within the free look period of 15 days.
9.        However, we do not find any merit in the defence of the OPs as it is evident from the copies of WhatsApp chat dated 7.5.2021 (Annexure C-3) that the complainant had informed OP-4 that she wanted the policy for three years only. However, despite of that, OPs sent the policy in question dated 14.5.2021, which was received by the complainant on 18.5.2021, having premium payment term of 12 years and she immediately called OP-4 who visited the complainant’s place on 22.5.2021 and the original policy was returned to him i.e. well within the prescribed free look period of 15 days.
10.        Moreover, it is incomprehensible that a prudent person like the complainant in the present case, who was more than 80 years old at that time, and in the twilight of her life, would take a policy having premium payment term of 12 years. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the OPs had mis-sold the policy in question to the complainant by painting rosy pictures and they cannot be allowed to usurp the hard earned money of the complainant. Not only this, the act of the OPs in not issuing the corrected policy or refunding the premium amount to the complainant, even after receiving requests from her within the free look period, certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
11.        In view of the above discussion the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the premium amount of ₹3,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of its actual realization. 
12.        This order be complied with by the OPs within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.
13.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 26/09/2024 hg	[AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU] PRESIDENT
	[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA] MEMBER