This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Nasir Molla.
The case of the complainant’s in short is that complainant is a customer of opposite party No.1, bank having his A/c. No.1668000100073860. At the request of the Branch Manager of PNB the complainant purchased a policy namely Metlife Company Ltd. amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid the said amount through draft being No.38970169 dated 05.06.2012 in favour of the Metlife Insurance Co. Ltd., Drawn on CDPC, Kolkata.
Thereafter the complainant repeatedly contacted with PNB, Itachuna-Khanyan Branch and PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd. for policy bond but they assured that their Insurance Policy is under process and they would hand over the policy immediately to the complainant. That on 20.1.2014 the PNB, MetLife Insurance Company informed the complainant by application No.203612420 dated 21.1.2014 that they are keen to process the petitioner’s proposal at the earliest rather they need certain information and requested to furnish same requirements thorough their representatives Binod Kumar Gosai. The complainant on 21.4.2014 again asked and requested to the Branch Manager, PNB to hand over the policy certificate amounting to Rs.20,000/-.
That after receiving the notice/ letter the Sr. Manager/AGM, Marketing Department, Circle Office at Burdwan informed the matter to the PNB, Itachuna-Khanyan Branch, Pandua, Hooghly on 8.10.2010 & 18.10.2014 and requested the PNB to expedite the matter with MetLife Authorities. They also agreed that the draft has already been paid on 28.6.2012 but till no policy has been issued in the name of Nasir Molla. Thereafter the complainant informed the matter to the Insurance Ombudsman for non-issuance of policy. The complainant also informed the matter to all concerned.
That the Asst. Deputy Secretary of the said Insurance Ombudsman Co. replied that they cannot consider the complaint by this Forum for the reason (i) for not mentioning the policy number (ii) Complaint is preferred by an Advocate/Third party (iii) complaint cannot be entertained being time barred (iv) the insurance policy issued or purchased in an individual capacity, so this is no justified in law.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum with prayer to direct the opposite party No.3 to deliver the policy bond amounting to Rs.20,000/- with interest and bonus, to the direct the opposite party No.1 & 3 to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest and bonus as calculated up to date to the petitioner, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony.
The opposite party No.1 contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that on the basis of the request of the complainant/customer this opposite party has made a demand draft in favour of PNB MetLife on 5.6.2012 and subsequently the demand draft was delivered to ‘PNB MetLife’ for further issuance of original bond. The bank has discharged duties as per the customers request. Now it is the responsibility of MetLife for further issuing the policy bond etc. and when the customer approaches the bank regarding non availability of bond the bank followed up the matter several times through different letters and e-mails but they (O.P. No.2) have not responded to the bank’s queries. The bank has discharged his duties with full responsibilities for the sake of customer’s interest. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank and the name of the opposite party No.1 is liable to be expunged from this case. Hence, this case.
The opposite party No.3 also contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against him. This opposite party submits that the opposite party No.3 is the branch office of PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., which is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Company’s Act, 1956 and which was having its registered office at Brigade Seshamahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004. This address has been changed with effect from 01.05.2016 to new address at Unit No.701, 702, & 703, 7th floor, West Wing, Raheja Tower, 26/27 M.G. Road, Bangalore-560 001. The said PNB MetLife India Insurance Company is primarily into the business of Life Insurance duly approved by the Government of India through the insurance regulator IRDAI and has branches across India and is widely acclaimed for its reputation and services. This opposite party has carved a niche for themselves in the insurance products as well as in the services across the country.
The opposite party states that the complainant, Mr. Nasir Molla expressed his willingness to obtain a policy of insurance from the opposite party and in furtherance to the same submitted a duly signed proposal form No.203612420 dated 10.01.2014. As per the ordinary course of business a proposer submits the duly filled proposal form along with the Initial Premium amount and only upon the receipt of the same, policy of insurance is issued in favour of the proposer. In the present case, since the complainant did not pay the premium amount, no policy of insurance was issued in his favour by the opposite party. Thus there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. That the instant complaint petition lacks of cause of action. There is no unfair trade practice or violation of contract and suppression of material facts against this opposite party by the complainant and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
Both sides filed evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1). Whether the Complainant Nasir Molla, is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Nasir Molla, is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as the complainant being the customer of opposite party No.1 bank purchased a policy bond from the opposite party No.3, so he is entitled to get service from the opposite party as consumer.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued Rs.100,000/- for loss sustained by the complainant and as compensation for mental agony and other expenses ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The opposite party being the largest Insurance Company of the Nation associated with the insurance of a lot of people of throughout the whole nation since a long back with self generated assets i.e. goodwill of the business. So, the credibility of the OP Insurance Company is unquestionable and that is why the complainant insured his life before the said company without any doubt. It is well settled proposition of law that a contract of insurance is based on the principles of utmost good faith-uberrimae fidei applicable to both the parties. The rule of nondisclosure of material facts vitiating a policy still holds the field. The bargaining position of the parties in a contract of insurance is unequal. The insured knows all the facts; the insurer is unaware of anything which may be material to the risk. Very often, it is the insured who is the sole person who has this knowledge. The insurer may not even have the means to find out facts which would materially affect the risk. The law, therefore, enjoins on the insured an absolute duty to disclose correctly all material facts which is within his/her personal knowledge or which he ought to have known had he made reasonable inquiries. A contract of insurance, therefore, can be repudiated for non disclosure of material facts.
The case of the complainant is that he being a customer of opposite party No.1, bank purchased a policy namely PNB Metlife Company Ltd. amounting to Rs.20,000/-. The complainant paid the said amount through draft being No.38970169 dated 05.06.2012 in favour of the MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd., drawn on CDPC, Kolkata.
Thereafter the complainant repeatedly contacted with PNB, Itachuna-Khanyan Branch and PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd. for policy bond but they assured that their Insurance Policy is under process and they would hand over the policy immediately to the complainant. That on 20.1.2014 the PNB, MetLife Insurance Company informed the complainant by application No.203612420 dated 21.1.2014 that they are keen to process the petitioner’s proposal at the earliest rather they need certain information and requested to furnish some requirements through their representatives Binod Kumar Gosai. That after receiving the notice the Sr. Manager / Marketing Dept. circle, Burdwan informed the matter to PNB Bank Itachuna branch requesting to expedite the matter with MetLife Insurance co. and they are in the view that the draft has already been paid till no policy has been issued in the name of the complainant. Then the complainant on 21.4.2014 again asked and requested to the Branch Manager, PNB to hand over the policy certificate amounting to Rs.20,000/-.
The complainant also informed the matter to all concerned. That the Asst. Deputy Secretary of the Insurance Ombudsman Co. replied that they cannot consider the complaint by this Forum stating the reasons and tried to evade their responsibility. During the pendency of the complaint petition the opposite party No.3 through letter dated 20.09.2016 sent a cheque being No.285054 dated 12.09.2016 of Rs.20000/- in favour of the complainant. The petitioner tried to deposit the cheque in the bank but the opposite party bank refused to deposit the same. Then one Aniruddha Mukherjee took the cheque on behalf of the PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Ltd with an endorsement ‘received the cheque dated 02.02.2017’ and the complainant informed this matter before this Forum on 24.11.2016 and 11.08.2017 and filed documents in that respect. The opposite party No.3 vide its letter dated 20.09.2016 informed that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was submitted by the complainant through demand draft 580635 was erroneously accounted in the policy No.20872515 in the name of Ramkrishana Malo due date on 29.12.2012 and the amount has been processed on 12.09.2016 through cheque being no.285054.
The opposite party No.3 in his written argument assailed that the complainant Nasir Molla expressed his willingness to obtain a policy of Insurance from the opposite party and in furtherance of the same submitted a duly signed Form No.203612420 dated 10.01.2014 but the complainant did not pay the initial amount along with the Proposal Form as a result no policy of Insurance was issued in favour of the Complainant. The opposite party No.3 also averred that there was no contractual relationship between the opposite party and the complainant and the complaint petition lacks the cause of action so it is liable to be rejected. The opposite party No.1 bank admitted that the complainant filed the proposal Form alongwith the cheque of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the opposite party No.3 Insurance Company inspite of several reminders by the opposite party bank the opposite No.3 failed to provide this Complainant the desired policy document. That is the boon of dispute for which the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
The letter dated 20.09.2016 clearly speaks that the opposite party No.3 admitted that the draft being No.58065 filed by the complainant was erroneously accounted in the policy No.20872515 in the name of Ramkrishana Malo towards the due date on 29.12.2012. It is clearly stated in letter dated 20.9.2016 that the above said payment was made by you towards your policy however the same was erroneously refunded to Ramkrishna malo as excess premium through cheque bearing number ‘000037318’. They understood that the complainant wish to apply for cancellation instead of reissuing the said policy and hence the refund for an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been processed on 12.09.2016 through cheque bearing No.285054 and the same will be dispatched to the correspondence of the complainant shortly. Later on the cheque received by the complainant being cheque No.285054 dated 12.09.2016 and deposited the said cheque before the Punjab National Bank, Itachuna Branch, Hooghly wherefrom the one Aniruddha Mukherjee posing to be representative of the opposite party no.3 received the cheque on 02.02.2017. Upon a careful consideration the complainant being a bonafide customer of the opposite party bank by purchasing the policy of the opposite party suffered immense harassment at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite party No.3. Till the date of argument the said opposite party denied his liability and tried to escape by washing hands from the whole episode. The opposite party no.1&2 tried their best by writing letters to the opposite party No.3 for issuance of policy to the complainant. The efforts of the complainant and the opposite party No.1&2 came into all in vain. So the complainant sought the redress of this Forum. This is a bare example of harassment and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.3. As such this Forum is in the opinion to allow the complaint petition.
Considering all the facts and circumstances we may hold that the complaint petition has merit so the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost & others.
From the above discussion we can safely conclude that the complainant succeeds to prove his case by producing sufficient documents.
4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has proved his case and the opposite Party No.3 is liable to pay compensation & other reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite Party No.3 with a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The opposite party No.3 is directed to refund the policy amount of Rs.20,000/- to this complainant.
The opposite party No.3 is further directed to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- to this complainant for mental agony and harassment.
The opposite Party No.3 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for unfair trade practice in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. All the payment are to be made within 30 days from the date of passing this Order.
The OP No.1&2 are exonerated from this proceeding.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
