DATE OF FILING : 05/11/2014
DATE OF S/R : 16/04/2015
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26/05/2016
MR. DILIP BANERJEE
S/O- Late Santosh Banerjee,
aged about 57 years, by religion Hindu,
by occupation- business, residing at
43, Dharmadas Kundu Lane, P.S: Shibpur,
Howrah:711 102..…………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.
- Branch Manager,
PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., situated at
Krishna Enclave, 1 st Floor,
2/1, Bhajan Lal Lohia Lane,
Salkia, Howrah-711 106
Having its registered office at Brigade Seshamahal,
5 Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore 560 004...………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, namely, Mr. Dilip Banerjee, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs.1,24,500/- so paid by him towards two insurance policies issued by O.P. to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost along with other order or orders as the forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant on being persuaded by the agent of O.P. bough two insurance policies having nos i) 20185122 and 20441738 for a total amount of Rs.1,24,500/- in the year 2009 and 2010. That agent also assured him that the policies were single premium policies. And being convinced, he did not go through the policy documents. But in the month of October, 2012, complainant upon going through the documents, found that complainant is required to pay the premium of Rs.1,00,000/- continuously for 20 years for the policy no 20185122, and for the policy no.20441738 ,Rs. 24,500/- for 5years and the maturity dates of those two policies fall in 2029 and 2056. Complainant became perplexed as he was not in a position to pay the premium for two polices for such long periods. So complainant contacted the office of O.P. There he was again misguided and ultimately he come to know that his policies can never turn in to single premium policies. So, he lodged a complaint with O.P. in December 2012. But O.P. did not reply to that complaint and remained silent. And in September 2013. Complainant sent further complaint to O.P. with a request to refund his invested amount of Rs.1,24,500/- . But O.P. did not take any action. So, being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notice was served up on O.P. appeared and filed W/V. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest against O.P.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
- We have carefully gone through the W/V and its annexures filed by O.P.and noted their contents. It is the specific plea taken by o.p that they issued the policies after getting the respective proposal forms from the complainant. And in due time they also sent those policy documents to the complainant through the courier service having consignment nos. 40220490575 and 40290390744, received by the complainant on 18/12/2009 and 26/11/2010 respectively which prove that those policy documents were delivered to him in proper time. Those policy documents clearly mention that if he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy in question, the complainant can cancel the policy within 15 days i.e within the Free-look period. But the complainant did not avail himself of that opportunity. Accordingly , it is the contention of o.p that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the petition of complainant should be dismissed. Moreover, complainant failed to pay regular premium in both the policies. So, the policies have become lapsed and paid-up value of those policies has been zero as per the terms and conditions of the policy documents. Here we take a pause. Now-a-days , it has become a common practice of the organisations like o.ps’ that they engage agents to misguide the common people. These agents are only interested to sell the policies by hook or crook. They donot even mind to adopt all possible unfair means to trape the common people. As it is a fact that single premium policy always attract people, as in this case, the agents and their principal are also availing themselves of the such opportunity in an unfair way which really cause financial, mental and physical harassment to the policy holders, like this complainant which should not be allowed to be perpetuated anymore. It is also our common knowledge that the agent of the insurer always fills up the form, the proposer is to put his or her signature. And it is done at the instruction of such agent who acts on behalf of the principal. The institutions like O.P’s., should train up their agents in a fair manner. But in practice, the agents as well as their principals are always interested to receive the premiums from the customers even adopting some unfair means, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly, we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 570 of 2014 ( HDF 570 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to refund Rs. 1,24,500/-to the complainant within 30 days from this order id the entire amount shall carry and interest @ 8% p.a. till actual payment.
That the O.P. is further directed to pay rupees 4000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500 as litigation costs within 30 days from this order id the entire amount shall carry and interest @ 8% p.a. till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
