Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/626/2021

Damanpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Karan S Gill

01 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/626/2021
Date of Institution	:	17.9.2021
Date of Decision	:	1/11/2023

 

1.       Damanpreet Singh son of  late Mr. Harjinder Singh minor through his mother Mrs. Priyanka Saini as his natural guardian.

2.       Priyanka Saini wife of late Mr. Harjinder Singh both residents of Ward No.8, Bhabat, Near Sokhi Doctor, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Punjab)

 

… Complainants

V E R S U S

1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited through its Branch Manager with its Branch office at SCO No. 64-65, Sector 17, Chandigarh (UT).
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited through its Agent/insurance Broker/Intermediary Amandeep Kaur daughter of Gurnam Singh, resident of Aliwal Road, Christrian Colony Batala, District Gurdaspur (Punjab).
3. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited through its Managing Director/Chairman Unit No.101, First floor, Techniplex 1, Techniplex complex, off veer savarkar flyover, S. V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400 062.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Simranpreet Kaur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Karan S. Gill, Advocate for complainants
	:	Sh. Sh. Mandeep K. Dhot, Advocate for OPs No.1&3.
		OP No.2 exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the deceased  Harjinder Singh father of the complainant No.1 and husband of complainant No.2 (hereinafter to be referred as DLA) had purchased one policy namely “PNB METLIFE ENDOWMENT SAVING PLAN PLUS” (hereinafter to be referred as subject policy) Annexure C-1 from the OPs on 10.12.2017 commencing  from 6.12.2017 for 15 years to be matured on 6.12.2032, on payment of annual premium of Rs.20,000.31  with basic sum assured to the tune of Rs.2,56,590/-. The first premium was paid by the DLA to the OPs which was duly  acknowledged by them vide receipt Annexure C-2. Thereafter the  installment of second premium  was paid by the complainant to the OPs  online on 6.12.2018 which has already been  reflected in the statement of account of the DLA Annexure C-3. Thereafter the OP NO.2 through its agent approached the  DLA  for payment of next premium in the month of January 2019  and accordingly the same was paid by  the DLA to the OP No.2, which was also acknowledged through receipt Annexure C-4. However, during the currency of the subject policy, the policy holder Harjinder Singh suddenly suffered massive heart attack and expired on 6.2.2020. Copy of death certificate is Annexure C-5. Thereafter the complainants informed the OPs about the death of insured and requested to pay the benefit of the policy  vide Annexure C-6 but the claim of the complainants was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the third year installment of premium has not been paid by the policy holder as a result whereof the policy has been lapsed. In this manner the OPs had ignored the receipt of  third premium paid on 12.1.2019. The complainants filed complaint with Insurance OMBUDSMAN Chandigarh  for the redressal of their grievances but the same was dismissed vide order Annexure C-7 dated 28.6.2021. As the OPs have wrongly repudiated the genuine claim of the complainants, the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.   OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs No. 1 and 3 resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts. However, it is admitted that Harjinder Singh DLA  purchased the subject policy from the OPs by paying  installments of premium for two years i.e. for the year 2017 and  2018 but alleged that as the installment of third premium has not been paid by the DLA and also that
   Annexure C-4 is a forged receipt which was never issued by the OPs, the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated as  at the time of death of  the DLA Harjinder Singh, the policy was already lapsed  for want of payment of third installment of premium by the DLA. It is further alleged that the complainants had approached the Insurance OMBUDSMAN by filing complaint which was dismissed. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. OP No.2 was properly served and when OP No.2 did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 15.3.2022.
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the contesting OPs.

2. In order to prove their case, contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the subject policy Annexure C-1 purchased by the DLA Harjinder Singh in the year 2017 by paying installment of first premium of Rs.20,000.31  which was acknowledged by the OPs vide receipt Annexure C-2 and had also paid next installment of premium by making online payment on 6.12.2018 as is evident from copy of statement of account of DLA Annexure C-3,  and also that the DLA died on 6.10.2020 as also evident from Annexure C-5 the death certificate, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the subject policy was subsisting at the relevant time i.e. at the time of death of the DLA Harjinder Singh on 6.10.2020 and the DLA had paid  installment of third premium on 12.1.2019 to the OPs  and the receipt Annexure C-4 is genuine receipt and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or the subject policy had already lapsed before the death of the DLA on account of non deposit of third installment of annual premium and the receipt Annexure C-4 is a forged document and the complaint of the complainants is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the contesting OPs. 
   2. In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around  the receipt Annexure C-4 which will determine the controversy between the parties i.e. if the DLA had already paid  installment of third premium to the OPs on 12.1.2019 and the receipt Annexure C-4  is a  genuine document or  if the same is forged document.
   3. The learned counsel for the complainants contended that as it stands proved on record that the OPs had acknowledged the cash payment made by the DLA to the OPs vide receipt Annexure C-4 through agent Bikram Singh on 12.1.2019 and further that the DLA died on 6.10.2020 and the premium of the subject policy was paid upto 6.12.2020, the repudiation of the claim of the  complainants by the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for. On the other hand Ld. counsel for OPs No.1&3 contended that as it stands proved on record that the alleged receipt Annexure C-4 is forged document which was never issued by OP No.2 through agent Amandeep Kaur, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for OPs No.1&3 as the complainants have failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the receipt Annexure C-4 for the following reasons.
      1. It is an admitted case of the parties that the  installment of annual premium was payable by the insured on 6^th December annually  and the  DLA had paid first premium on 2.10.2017 vide Annexure C-2, which was duly acknowledged by OP No.2 through its agent Amandeep Kaur  and copy of statement of account
         Annexure C-3  further indicates that the second installment was paid by the DLA on 6.12.2018 online which has also been reflected in the statement of account making clear that the third installment was payable by the DLA on 6.12.2019. However, the complainants who are relying on receipt Annexure C-4 dated 12.1.2019 tried to prove that the said third premium, which was though payable by the DLA on 6.12.2019 was paid by him in advance i.e. about 11 months prior to the due date which itself creates suspicion about the genuineness of the document. Moreover, as per  case of the complainants the said receipt was issued by OP No.2 i.e. PNB MetLife through its agent Amandeep Kaur  but surprisingly the alleged receipt Annexure C-4 bears signature of one Bikram Singh and does not bear signature of Amandeep Kaur. It is not the case of the complainants that the receipt was signed by Bikram Singh. Not only this, another suspicion circumstances surrounding the genuineness of the receipt Annexure C-4 is that the OPs had already issued lapsed notice Annexure R-4 dated 6.5.2020 to the DLA when he was alive  intimating him that due to the non payment of the due premium amount by the insured which was payable by 6.12.2019 the policy stood lapsed w.e.f. 5.5.2020 i.e. due to non payment of premium amount on the grace period and further  as it is an admitted case   of the parties that the deceased died on 6.10.2020 after  five months of the receipt of notice from the OPs and he never agitated  before the OPs that he had already paid the premium for the subject policy and the same was acknowledged by their agent   Amandeep Kaur  vide receipt Annexure C-4, it is clear that the aforesaid receipt Annexure C-4 was not in existence on date of death of DLA i.e. 6.10.2020 and the same had only come into existence after his death especially  had the receipt available with the DLA at that time when the notice Annexure R-4 was received by him qua lapse of the subject policy, he could have produced the same before the OPs.

 

4.  In view of the above discussion when it has come on record that the complainant failed to discharge onus to prove  the genuineness of the receipt
   Annexure C-4,  it is safe to hold that  due to non  payment of premium amount i.e. third premium by the DLA which was payable by 6.12.2019, the  subject policy had lapsed on 5.5.2020 i.e. about 5 months before the death of
   the DLA and as such the complainants are failed to prove their case and are not entitled for the claim and  OPs have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 1/11/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member