Date of filling     :   19.10.2016    

                                                                               Date of transfer :   27.06.2022

                                                                               Date of order      :  28.09.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE

PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L.     PRESIDENT

                                THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L.                    MEMBER – I

        SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,     MEMBER-II

WEDNESDAY THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER  2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 97/2022

1.  Mr. A. Saravanan,

     S/o. G. Arumugam,

     No.13, 1^st Street, Banu Nagar,

     Ambattur,

    Cehnnai – 600 053.                                                                        

2. Mrs. A. Pushpa,

    D/o. G. Arumugam,

    No.281, M.G.R.Nagar, 19^th Street,

    Periyakuppam,

    Thiruvallur – 602 001.                                                                         ...Complainant

-Vs-

1. The  Manager,

    PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    SB Complex, No.115 W Block,

    (Near Roundtana) Anna Nagar,

    Chennai – 600 040.

2. The Managing Director,

    PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    Brigade Sesha Mahal,

    No. 5, Vani Vilas Road,

    Basuvangudi,

    Bangalore – 560 004.                                                                  ...Opposite parties

Counsel for complainant                                 :   Thiru. S. Rajesh & Hemalatha

Counsel for first and second opposite parties :  Thiru. V.T. Narendiran  

ORDER

(Through V.C)

THIRU. A. MEENASKHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

            This complaint has been filed Under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,03,092/- towards premium amount paid by the complainants for actual expenses incurred by the complainants and also to pay costs of this complaint.          

1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

The complainants are brother and sister, their father one Mr.G. Arumugam was worked in a foreign country.  After he came back to Chennai in this old age he  intended to deposit some amount in any insurance company for the welfare of his grandchildren’s and their future life.  He was searching for a good insurance company in the month of January 2015, the first opposite party made request to deposit the amount as life insurance in their company, at that time of the office people  the first opposite party continuously approached the complainants and their father. Accordingly the complainants agreed to take four insurance policies in their children names as here under:

  The first opposite party explained various schemes of insurance policies, the complainants and their father selected a policy with seven years duration. The premium amount of insurance policy is Rs.25,000/- per year and duration of 7years  from 2015. The first opposite party got signature in unfilled printed application and received photos of the complainants and other needy documents for the purpose of insurance policy, along with Rs.25,773/- each policy totally received of Rs.1,03,092/- for four policies and additional expenses as their service charges etc.   At the time of  receiving  policy documents the complainants did not see the policy details and also it is in very small letters and could not able to read easily, before completion of one year the complainants father paid second year premium of Rs.1,00,000/- each Rs.25,000/- for four policies, vide cheque No.000175, dated 01.03.2016, after paid  premium the complainants father perused the documents of the policy and he was very shocked  and surprised to see that the period of the policy was mentioned  as on 14, 15 years 20 years etc., the complainants and their father never agreed the period of policy extend to more than seven years.  Immediately they contacted the first opposite party and requested to them correct the error of year wrongly mentioned in the insurance policy amount.  But the first opposite party never did anything regarding the complainants request and gave a very evasive reply lazily, then only the complainants came to know that year mentioned in the policy is not wrongly but wilfully done. The first opposite party has committed the above said mistake for their benefits. The opposite parties cheated their customers like as stated above regularly. They never consider about the years of policy as customer’s wish but they filled their own wish and compelled the customers for paying the premium for a long period. This act of the opposite parties is purely cheating and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.

2. Written version opposite party is as follows:

            The complainants do not make out a consumer case or is the cause of action made out for deficiency of service.  In fact, the very complaint ought to be dismissed for misjoinder of cause of action and parties as four separate policies with different premiums and coverage term and sum assured and policy holder name and life insured are different in each policy and hence, cannot be filed as a common complaint, even if the parties are brother and sister and it is fatal to the case and for this reason alone the complaint has to be dismissed.  The very basis of the complaint is neither acceptable on law or on facts, the contention of the complainants in para 4 is that they did not see the details of the policy they signed and that they could not read it easily is neither acceptable or believable  and legally untenable.  He has noted the contents and purport thereof and at the outset  the opposite parties inform to the complainant that the  subject matter raised by the complainant is not based on correct understanding of facts and law.  We have thus furnished incomplete and correct information to complainant, which are spelled out herein below:  

The policy bonds were dispatched to the complainant by the opposite party details of dispatch are mentioned below:

The complainant has never disputed the fact of receipt of the policy.  Since, the complainant has not raised any objections or complaint during the FREE LOOK PERIOD  the contracts of Insurance in which the complainant had with opposite party were presumed to be legally concluded.  The complainant has remitted one renewal premium in all the policies, suddenly on 05.04.2016, the opposite party received a communication from the complainants raising concern against the policies.  In fact after the admission form had fructified into a insurance policy, which also provided for a 15 days window to verify the policy conditions i.e free look period to cancel it, but even this was not utilized by the complainants.  After one year of the policy, the belated contention of the complainants that they were sold the insurance policy premium term which was 7 years is neither believable nor acceptable. The opposite parties had suitably replied to the complainants queries and even in the legal notice of the complainant, we suitably replied to by the reply notice dated 05.08.2016 from their counsel. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief and this complaint to be dismissed with cost.        

3.         Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. Proof affidavit opposite parties filed.  Document was not filed.  Written arguments of both sides filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.  

4. The Points that arises for consideration are:

         1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite   

               parties?

         2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?          

         3.   To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

5. POINT NOS.1&2:            The complainants’ father took four insurance policies in favour of his grandchildren as detailed  hereunder: 

            The premium for each policy was Rs.25,000/-.  According to the complainant the tenure of the policy was only 7 years.  But when he renewed the aforesaid policies for second year, they noticed that the duration of the policy was mentioned as 14 years, 15 years, and 20 years etc.,.  Further the first opposite party cheated the complainants by repeating the year and duration of the policy and therefore, the complainants were not willing to continue the policy and they requested the opposite party to change the duration of the policy for 7 years. But the opposite party refused. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint. Per contra the opposite party raised an objection that the complainants have no locus standing to file this complaint. Further, they also alleged that before the complainant took the policy their representative has explained the nature of the policy and premium duration etc., to the complainants and has satisfied with the policy condition etc., and  after that only they took the policy. Further the complainants have not raised any objection or complaint during the free look period; hence the contract of Insurance became a concluded contract. Therefore, now policy could not be the changed.  In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the complainants should have been vigilant before purchasing the product of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant cannot agitate on the ground of ignorance of the policy. He raised objection only after second renewal after lapse of one year.  Therefore, we could not accept the contention of the complainant that, they are not aware of the duration of the policy which is very insurer available in their hand.  But when the complainant’s are expressing their unwillingness to continue the policy further, the opposite party should have considered their claim and they should have refunded the amount paid by way of subscription, after deducting the necessary charges if any, but in the present case the opposite party did not come forward to pay a penny to the complainant as if they did not have a right to claim any money in this case.  On going through the complaint we find that, the complainant does not want to continue the insurance policy with the opposite party.  Therefore, in general the opposite party should have refunded after deducting the necessary charges if any etc. to the complainants. Therefore, we find that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, these Points Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.              

6. POINT NO. 3:     As we have decided in point Nos. 1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,82,783/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Three only) and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainants.  Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.   

7.         In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,82,783/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Three only) and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainants, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization.   

             Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th September 2022.

     Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER –I                                    MEMBER-II                                     PRESIDENT      

LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-26.02.2015  -  Copy of Insurance Policy No. 21500272

Ex.A2-26.02.2015  -  Copy of Insurance Policy No. 21500273

Ex.A3-29.03.2015  -  Copy of Insurance Policy No. 21500953

Ex.A4-20.04.2015  -  Copy of Insurance Policy No. 21500804

Ex.A5-24.03.2016  -  Copy of requesting letter  

Ex.A6-15.04.2016  -  Copy of reply from the opposite party

Ex.A7-18.04.2016  -  Copy of reply from the opposite party

Ex.A8-16.06.2016  -  Copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant

Ex.A9-17.06.2016  -   Acknowledgement card

Ex.A10-05.08.2016 -  Copy of Reply Notice

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS :                               -NIL-

     Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER –I                                    MEMBER-II                                     PRESIDENT