Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Consumer Complaint No.: 416
Instituted on: 22.08.2019
Decided on: 04.12.2024
Naveen Singh son of Sh. Vijay Pal Singh son of late Shri Bhagwan Singh r/o House no. 2060/1, Indira Colony, Rohtak.
….Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jhajjar Road Branch, Rohtak.
- The Divisional Manager, P.N.B. Metlife Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office Unit no. 701,702 & 703, 7thStorey, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27, M.G. Road, Banglore -560001 (Karnatka).
- Dimpi Gulati, bearing licence/registration no. 3178554, Email I.D.
……Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJDENER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mohan Bhoria, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Manchanda, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Smt. Ruchi Chawla, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 already given up (VOD 10.10.2022).
ORDER
SH. NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the present complaint, as per the complainant are that the grandfather of the complainant namely Late Shri Bhagwan Singh obtained a policy bearing no.22123638 from opposite party no.1 in the name of complainant and paid the instalments of premium @48,000/- per annum well in time. After paying two instalments, Shri Bhagwan died on 29.03.2018. As per policy conditions, the complainantis now entitled to get all the benefits of said policy. So, the complainant visited and requested the opposite parties many a times for all the benefits but the opposite parties ignored him every time. The complainant got registered his complaint no.947898 dated 10.06.2018 via consumer helpline and also moved a written complaint to opposite parties but of no use. This act and conduct of the respondents rendered deficient services and caused mental pain and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint and it has been prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to give all the benefits of the insurance policy to the complainant alongwith interest and to pay compensation of Rs.500000/- and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses besides any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statements separately. However they failed to make available the address of opposite party no.3 and therefore,opposite party No.3 was given up by order dated 10.11.2022 of this Commission on the statement of ld. counsel for the complainant.
3. The opposite party no.1 by way of its written statement raised preliminary objections that the grandfather of the complainant had purchased the insurance policy form PNB Metlife and not from Punjab National Bank and therefore, making PNB as party no.1 is totally wrong and PNB has no role to play in the matter and further stated that PNB Metlife has already rejected the claim of the complainant. On merits, it is replied that there is nothing on record against which the complaint of misbehaviour has been lodged with the bank. The complainant has cause of action against PNB Metlife or against the agent of the company only who has issued the policy to the complainant. Hence, making PNB as party is wastage of precious time of the official of the opposite party no.1. Moreover the PNB Metlife being a Limited Company is a juristic person and can sue or can be sued in individual capacity and accordingly, prayed for deletion of name of PNB with heavy cost.
4. The opposite party no.2 in its written statement also took some preliminary objections and submitted thatMr. Bhagwan Singh, the grand father of complainant had submitted a declaration alongwith online proposal form for the purchase of the life insurance policy for his grandson Mr. Naveen and believing the details given by the complainant, the respondent has issued the Policy no. 22123638 on 06.03.2017 with commencement risk as 25.2.2017, sum assured Rs.2,47,647/-, premium as Rs.48,400.13/- annually. In the said policy, the policy holder was Mr. Bhagwan Singh and life assured was Mr. Naveen. In the subject policy, policy holder paid two premiums and as per the clause 4.4 of the term and conditions of the policy, if all the instalment premiums for atleast two consecutive policies have been paid, the policy shall acquire a surrender value and the complainant has never requested for the surrender of the policy and once the policy was surrendered, the policy cannot be revived. The respondent has replied through its letter dated 12.10.2018 with regard to grievance raised by the complainant with National Consumer Helpline vide reference no. 947898 that death benefit is payable only in case of unfortunate death of life insured. Since Late Mr. Bhagwan Singh was the policy owner and not the life assured, hence, the death claim is inadmissible. Further, the opposite party has advised the complainant to change the policy ownership in his name but no response has been received from the side of the complainant. Hence, no case for deficiency in services is made out in this case as there is no breach on the part of insurance company and no benefit becomes payable to the complainant. Accordingly dismissal of the complaint has been sought by opposite party no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-11in his evidence and closed the same on 07.06.2023. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex. RW1/A and closed the same on 08.01.2024. Similarly, the counsel for opposite party No. 2 also tendered in his evidence affidavit Ex. RW2/A and documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the same on dated 27.02.2024.
5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents placed on record and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the grandfather of the complainant namely Late Shri Bhagwan Singh obtained a policy bearing no.22123638 from opposite parties in the name of complainant Naveen. Shri Bhagwan paid two premiums on dated 06.03.2017 and 12.03.2018 amounting to Rs.48400.13/- each. After that policyholder died on 29.03.2018. Through this complaint, the complainant has filed the death claim of his grandfather for Rs.500000/-. As per written statement complainant has never requested for the surrender of the policy and not changed the policy ownership in his name so the policy can be revived. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per policy condition no.3.2.4, placed on record as Ex.C1, death benefit is payable only in case of unfortunate death of life assured but in the present case, Late Sh. Bhagwan Singh was the policy owner and not the life assured. Hence complainant is not entitled for death benefits. It is also observed that as per condition no.4.4 of the policy, given at page no.16 of Ex.R4, “If all the instalment Premiums for at least 2 consecutive policy years have been paid, the policy shall acquire a Surrender Value”. In the present case also, two instalments were paid by the policy holder Sh. Bhagwan Singh and the policy acquired the surrender value. But after the death of policy holder, insurance company has not sent any letter/intimation to the complainant to revive his policy. If they hadinformed the life assured that he can revive the policy, in that situation, he would have paid the premium as per terms and conditions of the policy and can revive his policy. Moreover, the letter Ex.R5, alleged to have been sent by the opposite party to the complainant for change of ownership, is not supported with any postal receipt to prove the fact that the same was ever served by the insurance company to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the amount of premium deposited by the life assured i.e. Rs.96800.26/- by deducting the 25% amount on account of expenses of policy as well as the risk covered for that period. .
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.72600/-(Rupees seventy two thousand and six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.08.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
