Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/385/2017

M.M Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/385/2017
Date of Institution	:	03/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	03/04/2018

 

M.M. Khan s/o Mohd. Ulfat r/o H.No.5049/2, MHC, Manimajra, U.T, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited having Regd. office at ‘Brigade Seshamahal’ 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 through its Directors.

2.     PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited having its Branch Office at SCO No.2463-64, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh 160012.

…Opposite Parties

 

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

                                                              

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations in brief are, agent of OPs namely Shivani Gill visited the house of the complainant and informed about various investment plans in their company i.e. OPs. On being allured, the complainant agreed to make investment in fixed deposits to get fixed rate of interest. Accordingly fixed deposits of the sum of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- were made in the month of March 2015. However, in April, 2016, the complainant was in need of money and requested the OPs to close his fixed deposits and return the money, which was refused. The complainant had come to know that instead of making investment in fixed deposits, the OPs had invested his money in insurance policy without his consent. Despite request on 4.2.2017, OPs have refused to return the money.  Hence, deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been alleged and prayer for release of Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses made.
2.         OPs have contested the consumer complaint, filed the written statement and, inter alia, raised the preliminary objections of complaint being malafide and there is no consumer dispute. The complainant had willfully applied for the policy for the purpose of investment in insurance after knowing its terms and conditions.  Vide email dated 21.3.2016, complainant was informed that the policy was issued on the basis of information provided and he was provided a free look period of 15 days to review the features of the policy contract and to request for cancellation, if he was not satisfied with the same. Since the same was not done, therefore, the terms and conditions were acceptable to the complainant. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their case.
4.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
5.         A meticulous perusal of the allegations made in the consumer complaint shows the complainant being an educated person as he had appended his signatures in English.  It is not at all the case of the complainant of being illiterate and unable to read the documents. The policy (Annexure OP-1) which is in the name of M.M. Khan i.e. the complainant itself shows of this being a life insurance policy and not a fixed deposit. On this policy the signatures of the complainant were appended and it is also the case of the OPs that this policy was sent to the complainant and he had the option to surrender or get it cancelled within 15 days. However, the complainant failed to do so, meaning thereby, policy had become final and irrevocable.  Its surrender value, if any, permissive per terms and conditions, is liable to be acceded to by the complainant. 
6.         The learned counsel for the OPs has relied upon case titled as Prema & Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) and its relevant para 8 reads as under :-

8. Insofar as the filing of the proposal forms is concerned, Manjunath was a lineman in K.E.B. at Davangere. As such, the State Commission was justified in taking the view that it was reasonable to believe that he would have the minimum knowledge of these matters. Consequently it could not be believed that he had simply put his signatures on different proposal forms without understanding the contents of the relevant items. Besides, it may be mentioned that in terms of LIC v. M. Gowri’s Ors., the judgment referred to by the-State Commission the agent who got the proposal form could be an agent of the person seeking insurance policy. The plea that the insured was not aware of the requirement to give correct answer and about contents of the answers given cannot be accepted.

7.         In view of the aforesaid discussion and the case law relied upon, the complainant is estopped to make such like consumer complaint, that it was a fixed deposit and he was hoodwinked.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.   Hence, we proceed to dismiss the consumer complaint with no order as to costs.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President