Haryana

Panchkula

CC/292/2019

KEHAR SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GAGANDEEP SINGH

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	292 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	30.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	16.10.2023

 

 

Kehar Singh aged 59 years, resident of 563, B-I, Ratpur Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula-134102.  

 ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     M/s PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. Brigade Seshamahal 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagndi, Bangalore, through its Authorized Representative/ Signatory-560004, Karnataka.

2.     The Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, HMT Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula-134102. 

                                                                        ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant

                        Sh.Shital Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                        Defence of OP No.1 already struck off vide order dated                    24.09.2019.

                        Sh. Naresh Bagdi, Advocate for OP No.2.

                       

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

 

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant was working in HMT Ltd., Pinjore since 01.07.1983 and was having his salary account no.2939000400140875 in the Punjab National Bank, Pinjore Branch(OP No.2). It is stated that the complainant had visited the Branch Pinjore(OP No.2) in the month of April 2014 to deposit some amount in the Fixed Deposit(FD). In the bank, Mrs. Anita Jaiswal employee of OP No.2 was present, who asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.99,990/- for two years wherein he would get more interest in comparison to FDs. She asked the complainant to come on the next date i.e. on 18.04.2014. The complainant visited the bank on 18.04.2014 and met with Mrs.Anita Jaiswal and Mrs. Meenu Sharma. Mrs.Anita Jaiswal asked the complainant to sign some blank papers. On her asking, the complainant signed the papers and the amount of Rs.99,990/- was also paid from his account and handed over to Mrs. Meenu Sharma. It is stated that the complainant received a letter dated 12.05.2014 from the OP No.2 along with the policy no.21308707 for a period of 10 years, wherein the premium amount was Rs.99,990/- annual. The complainant has gone through the policy document and after going  through the documents, it revealed that in the application form, the occupation of the complainant was shown as businessman/self employed  for five years and annual income was shown as Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.Five Lakhs), whereas the complainant was working in the HMT, Pinjore. The complainant met Mrs.Anita Jaiswal and brought to her notice all the facts but she stated that he need not worry as it was only a formality and that the complainant would get his amount after two years along with interest. She also threatened the complainant that if he did not accept the policy, then the amount of Rs.99,990/- would be forfeited. The complainant had no option except to keep mum. It is stated that, on 06.04.2015, the complainant visited the Punjab National Bank, Pinjore Branch(OP No.2) regarding deposit of second installment  and the amount of Rs.99,990/- was paid through Demand Draft dated 06.04.2015. It is stated that the complainant was stunned to receive the policy no.21560109 dated 15.04.2015 vide letter dated 10.06.2015, wherein the duration of the policy was shown as 15.04.2015 to 15.04.2025. It is stated that the complainant had neither filled up any application form  and nor signed any documents about the said policy No.21560109, wherein the income of the complainant was shown as Rs.3.6 lakhs annual. The complainant had never met to agent/ broker/corporate agent, namely, Sh. Jagjit Singh and Sh.Rakesh, who had been shown as an agent and witness respectively in the said policy no. 21560109. It is stated that the complainant immediately visited the PNB Branch HMT Pinjore(OP No.2) and met Mr. Paras Jain and Mr. Kuldeep Rana. The complainant brought the abovesaid discrepancies in their knowledge. They asked the complainant to bring the policy No. 21308707 so that necessary correction could be made in the policy and policy No.21560109 would be cancelled. The complainant handed over the policy no.21308707 to the above said persons who sought time for getting the sanction of the head office but the OP no.2 had not taken any action and has not adjusted the amount of installments in the first policy, which has caused a great harassment and mental agony to the complainant. It is stated that the OPs No.1 & 2 had admitted their fault on 31.03.2016 and sent a letter to him, whereby PNB Metlife had accepted his request for cancellation of second policy and to refund the amount of second policy but till date, no action has been taken in this regard. The complainant has not received the policy no.21308707 till date, which was taken from him for correction. Thereafter,  the complainant again sent a complaint dated 12.04.2016 to the Grievance Redressal Team and also requested for cancellation of the policy no.21560109 dated 15.04.2015 and also requested for transferring the installment of Rs.99,990/- in the first policy no.21308707 dated 18.04.2014 but inspite of the letters as well as complaint, no action has been taken till date. Ultimately, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 28.12.2017 to the Ops but the OP No.2 sent a frivolous reply on 02.01.2018 to the said notice.  Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the Op No.1 has appeared through Sh.Amit Kumar, Assistnat Manager/Authorized Representative to contest the complaint; but he did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last one; therefore, its defence was struck off by the Commission, vide its order dated 24.09.2019.  However, the OP No.1 was allowed to join the further proceedings as per request made on 12.01.2021.

                Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law qua the OP No.2 as the matter is totally related to OP No.1. The OP No.2 has no role in functioning of the OP No.1 nor in the insurance policy transaction between complainant and the OP No.1 except transferring money from the account of the complainant to the account of the OP No.1 and that too on the written debit instructions received from the account holder/the complainant, which any public sector bank is bound to follow instructions of its customer/the account holder in its routine course of business as per banking procedure.  

                On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has his salary account in its branch i.e. PNB, HMT Pinjore. It is stated that Mrs. Anita Jaiswal was not its employee as alleged. It is submitted that the transfer of money from the account of the account holder is made on the written debit instructions of the account holder, which the bank is bound to follow as per banking procedure and Ms.Meenu Sharma did the same, doing her duty in routine course of banking. The other persons as alleged in the complaint are the employees of OP No.1 and not of OP No.2 except Mrs.Meenu Sharma, who had no role in the transaction between the complainant and the OP No.1. It is stated that the OP No.1 is a separate entity and the OP No.2 has no role in the functioning of the OP No.1. It is stated that the OP No.2 was having no role in the insurance transaction between complainant and the OP No.1 except transferring amount from the account of the complainant to the account of the OP No.1 and that too on the written debit instructions received from the account holder(the complainant) in its routine course of business as per banking procedure; so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the the present complaint.

3.The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-7 & C-7(colly) and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure R-2/A and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record available on file, including written arguments and additional written arguments placed on record by the OP No.1 and written arguments filed by OP No.2, minutely and carefully.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments, reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in affidavit (Annexure C-A) and contended that the OP had sold the Ist policy in question bearing no.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) to the complainant by wrongly showing him in the proposal form, as a businessman, having an annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.Five Lakhs). It is contended that the agent/ officials of OP No.1 and OP No.2 in connivance with each other had misrepresented the tenure of the policy as two years in place of 10 years. Regarding the second life insurance policy bearing no.21560109 dated 10.06.2015(Annexure C-7(colly)), the learned counsel argued that the same was never asked by the complainant from the Ops and in this regard, invited our attention towards the bank slip dated 10.04.2015 issued by the OP No.2, vide which the complainant had intended to make the payment in the earlier policy no.21308707. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the present complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of OP No.1 disputed the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground that the Consumer Commission at Panchkula lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. It is argued that the policy no.21560109 dated 10.06.2015(Annexure C-7(colly)) was issued from the branch of insurance company at Chandigarh; no cause of action has arisen at Panchkula and thus, the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh had alone the jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Reliance has been placed upon the case law titled as LIC Vs. Harish Chandra Joshi in First Appeal No.88 of 2009(SCDRC, Dehradun).

7.The above objection is rejected in view of the fact that the OP No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank is situated at Pinjore, from which the amount of Rs.99,990/- was debited from the account of the complainant and was deposited in the second policy no.21560109. The OP No.2 falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission and thus, the present complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

8.On merits, the learned counsel argued that the Ist policy bearing no.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) was issued to the complainant as per his wishes and desires qua which no objection was raised during the free look period. Controverting the contention of the complainant qua mentioning in the proposal form that he was a businessman having an income of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.Five Lakhs), the learned counsel argued that the mentioning of the complainant in the proposal form as businessman having an income of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.Five Lakhs) annual did not cause any kind of prejudice to him. It is vehemently contended that a validly and legally concluded contract had come into existence between the complainant and the OP No.1 qua the issuance of Ist Policy no.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2)  and thus, no lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 can be found with said Ist policy.

9.Coming to the second policy no.21560109(Annexure C-7(colly) dated 10.06.2015, the learned counsel argued that the complainant was duly asked by OP No.1 vide letter dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure C-3) followed by letter dated 18.03.2016 and letter dated 31.03.2016 to send certain documents as mentioned in the said letters, so as to enable it to transfer the amount of Rs.99,990/- from the  second policy no.21560109, into the Ist Policy no.21308707 but the complainant had failed to fulfill the necessary formalities by submitting the necessary documents. It is argued that the complainant had availed the facility of risk cover during the validly of both policies and thus, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP No.1; hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on following case laws:-

1. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn.OF India Ltd. Vs. Garg Sons International, reported in MANU/SC/0039/2013
2. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills(P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1375 of 2003 decided on 08.10.2010(SC).
3. Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Madhavacharya in Revision Petition no.211 of 2009 decided on 02.02.2010(NCDRC).
4. General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain & ors.  reported in MANU/SC/0180/1966.

 

10.The learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.2 reiterated the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit of Sh.Bachittar Singh(Annexure R-2/A) and contended that none of the employees or agents against whom the allegations of fraud or mis-representation has been leveled by the complainant belong to OP No.2 except Mrs.Meenu Sharma. It is contended that Sh.Paras Jain, Mrs. Anita Jaiswal, Sh.Kuldeep Rana and Sh.Jagat Singh had no relation with OP no.2 and thus, no liability can be imposed on OP No.2 for any deficiency or lapses on the part of the said persons. It is contended that the bank had merely acted while debiting the account of the complainant on the basis of instructions given by the complainant by issuing the cheques in question; as such, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint qua it being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

11.As per the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dispute between the parties is qua the first insurance policy No.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) and second policy no. 21560109 dated 10.06.2015(Annexure C-7(colly)).

12.With regard to the Ist Policy No. 21308707 dated 12.05.2014, we have perused the proposal form pertaining to this policy and find that the complainant has been shown therein as businessman having an annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs.Five Lakhs) whereas  the complainant is undisputedly a retired employee of HMT, Pinjore. As such, incorrect details qua the complainant were filled up in the proposal form, on the basis of which, the Ist Policy bearing no. 21308707 was issued. Though, no prejudice might have been caused to the complainant qua wrong mentioning of some particulars in the proposal form by OPs agents/ officials but the same gives strength and credence to the version of the complainant that he was misrepresented qua the tenure of the policy as two years in place of 10 years. Undisputedly, the proposal forms are filled up by agents/officials of the insurance company, who in order to sell more insurance policies, indulge into the unfair trade practice by making misrepresentation qua the total tenure of the policy. Therefore, we find deficiency on the part of the OP No.1, while issuing the first policy No. 21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) to the complainant on the basis of proposal form containing incorrect particulars of the complainant qua his occupation, income etc.

13.Now, we advert to the second policy no. 21560109 (Annexure C-(colly)) which was issued to the complainant on 10.06.2015. Qua this policy, the OP No.1 has submitted that the said policy was issued to the complainant on the basis of receipt of proposal form from him.

14.On the other hand, the complainant has stated that he has never applied for the second policy in question by submitting the proposal form in question. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the proposal form pertaining to second policy no.21560109 neither bears the signatures of the complainant, nor the photo affixed on the same is of the complainant.

15.Without going into the controversy with regard to the signatures or photo on the said proposal form, we are convinced and satisfied that the complainant had never opted the second policy bearing no.21560109 dated 10.06.2015(Annexure C-7(colly)). The bank slip dated 10.04.2015 issued by PNB Bank negates the contentions of the OP No.1 that it had issued the second policy to the complainant on the basis of his proposal form because in the said bank slip dated 10.04.2015, it is found that the complainant had intended to make the payment in the first policy no.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) vide cheque no. 602821. The said bank slip also bears the name and logo of OP No.1 in bold letters and thus, the OP No.1 by indulging in unfair practice, in active connivance of the bank officials/officers of OP No.2 had utilized the cheque amount pertaining to cheque no.602821 for the issuance of second policy. It was a gross act of unfair trade practice and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 as well as OP No.2. However, vide letter dated 16.03.2016(Annexure C-3) followed by letters dated 18.03.2016 and 31.03.2016, it had agreed to transfer the amount of Rs.99,990/-, from the second policy into the Ist policy no.21308707.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has contended that the complainant had failed to submit the necessary documents. No force and substance is found in the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP No.1 in the light of acknowledgment made by OP No.1 on the letter dated 18.03.2016, 27.06.2016, 31.03.2016, 12.04.2016 qua the verification of the signatures of the complainant. As such, the OP No.1 by not transferring the amount of Rs.99,990/-, from the second policy no.21560109 dated 10.06.2015(Annexure C-7(colly)) into the Ist policy No.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2) even after the receipt of duly verified signature of the complainant, was deficient while rendering services to the complainant, for which, it is liable to compensate the complainant.

16.Further, it is found that the proposal form pertaining to Ist policy no.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2), admittedly, bears the signatures of Smt.Meenu Sharma as agent, who was the Manager of OP No.2. It was the duty of said Smt.Meenu Sharma to look into the particulars of the complainant qua his income and occupation etc before putting her signatures on the proposal form. As such, the OP No.2 was also negligent while rendering services to the complainant qua policy no. 21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2).

17.Before parting with this order, we deem it proper to mention here that the OP No.2 i.e. the Punjab National Bank is a nationalized bank and is a public sector undertaking. As discussed above, the OP No.2(the Punjab National Bank) through its Manager and other officials, in connivance with insurance company(OP No.1), had caused the unwarranted and uncalled harassment to the complainant by utilizing his cheque no.602821 in the issuance of second insurance policy no.21560109 dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure C-7 (colly)), contrary to his intention, which is evident from the bank deposit slip dated 10.04.2019, which shows that he had intended to deposit the amount of Rs.99,990/- vide said cheque no. 602821 in the first policy No.21308707 dated 12.05.2014(Annexure C-2). In fact, the complainant had become the victim of aggressive marketing as adopted by the insurance company(OP No.1), in connivance with the bank officials/officers(OP No.2), in order to increase the sale of its insurance policy.

                Needless to mention here that the bank officials/officers of OP No.2 were duty bound to discharge their official functions in a fair and transparent manner, without indulging in any foul play or tactics in the sale of the insurance policy by insurance company(OP No.1). The bank officials/officers of OP No.2 were not expected to discharge their official functions in such a irresponsible & reprehensible manner, which is totally liable to be condemned and we express our displeasure with regard to their act and conduct. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its celebrated judgment dated 05.11.1993 delivered in the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta  reported in III(1993) CPJ 7(SC) observed that harassment of a common man by public authority is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensate  the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh reported in II(2004) CPJ 12(SC) observed that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. As per discussion made above, the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment due to the irresponsible and reprehensible act of the bank officials/officers of the OP No.2, for which they are liable to be burdened with adequate cost so as to meet the ends of justice. However, the bank(OP No.2) may recover the cost as awarded by the Commission from its erring officials/ officers.

18.Coming to relief, it is found that the complainant has sought the refund of Rs.2,99,970/-(Rs.99,990/- dated 18.04.2014 + Rs.99,990/- dated 06.04.2015 + Rs.99,9990/- dated 10.04.2015) along with  interest.  Further, a sum of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.22,000/- has been claimed on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges respectively.   

                With regard to the prayer of the complainant seeking the refund of Rs.2,99,970/-, the attention of the learned counsel for the complainant was drawn towards a letter(attested by him), which was written by the complainant to the bank(OP No.2), wherein the complainant has admitted that he had received the payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs. The learned counsel has agreed that the payment of sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One lakh) was received by the complainant as mentioned in the said letter. For the sake of convenience and adjudication of the controversy involved in the present complaint in a fair and proper manner, the said letter is assigned the particular Mark as Mark ‘A’. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.1,99,980/-(Rs.99,990+ Rs.99,990/-)  from insurance company (OP No.1).

19.As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,99,980/-(Rs.99,990+ Rs.99,990) along with interest @ 9% per annum(simple interest) to the complainant w.e.f. 10.06.2015 i.e. the issuance of second policy no. 21560109 dated 10.06.2015 (Annexure C-7(colly))  till its realization.
2. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
3. The OP No.2 is burdened with the cost of Rs.25,000/-, payable to the complainant  on account of indulgence of its officials/officers in the wrong and unfair practice.
4. The OP No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant as litigation charges.

 

20.The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 16.10.2023

 

 

 

        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg         Satpal

                Member                     Member                   President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                  Satpal                                                                                      President

 

 

 

 

CC No. 292 of 2019

 

Present:             Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant

                        Sh.Shital Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                        Defence of OP No.1 already struck off vide order dated                    24.09.2019.

                        Sh. Naresh Bagdi, Advocate for OP No.2.

                                       

                        Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 16.10.2023 for orders.

       

Dated: 03.10.2023

 

 

 

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal               

                 Member                          Member                       President

 

 

Present:             Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant

                        Sh.Shital Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                        Defence of OP No.1 already struck off vide order dated                    24.09.2019.

                        Sh.Naresh Bagdi, Advocate for OP No.2.

                                       

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.16.10.2023

 

 

        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav     Dr.Sushma Garg                Satpal

              Member                              Member                  President