Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/680/2019

Palwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar

18 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/680/2019
Date of Institution	:	08/07/2019
Date of Decision	:	18/08/2020

 

Palwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Jaswant Singh, aged about 64 years, resident of House No.95, Block-A, Ward No.7, Kansal, District Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.68-69, 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office : Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, MG Road, Bangalore-560001, Karnataka through its Managing Director.
3. Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
4. Ms. Kanka, Bank Official, Punjab National Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh (deleted vide order dated 20.11.2019)

… Opposite Parties

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

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte
	:	OP-4 deleted vide order dated 20.11.2019

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      The long and short of the allegations are, complainant is having SB account with the OP-3 Bank. Averred she is having average qualification and cannot fill English forms at her own. On 1.2.2018, the complainant visited OP-3/bank for investment of her whole life earned money.  Alleged, OP-4 allured her to invest Rs.2,50,000/- in FDR and Rs.1,00,000/- with PNB Metlife Company/OPs 1 & 2, sister concern of the bank, upon which she would get 12% p.a. interest. Accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to the OPs and they obtained her signatures on blank papers. The OPs issued policy and FD receipt. The complainant thereafter approached the OPs and she was told to wait for one year for refund of the amount with interest. After one year, the complainant again approached the OPs for refund, but, they lingered the matter and instead of refunding the amount insisted her to deposit Rs.99,999.60 failing which the amount would be forfeited. The complainant also submitted letter dated 30.3.2019 to the OPs to cancel the policy, but to no avail.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest; compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OPs 1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written statement and raised a number of preliminary objections.  Maintained the policy was issued based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant. The policy was issued to the complainant on 10.2.2018 which was delivered on 20.2.2018 and if she was not satisfied with the terms and conditions, she could have opted for cancellation as per regulation 6(2) of the IRDA, but she never approached the OPs. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.     None appeared on behalf of OP-3 despite registered notice. Therefore, vide order dated 30.9.2019, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.     Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.     During the course of hearing through video conferencing, learned counsel for the complainant conceded that the complainant has already received the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from OPs 1 & 2 and accordingly the complainant confined her claim to compensation for harassment and litigation etc.  Email to this effect was also sent with written communiqué which was placed on file. 
7.     No doubt, OPs 1 & 2 acceded to the request of the complainant, may be as a goodwill gesture, and during the pendency of the consumer complaint finally returned the invested amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. However, this does not absolve the OPs of the inaction and deficiency in service on their part in retaining such a huge amount with them for such a long time.   If the OPs were so magnanimous and were to concede the claim, they could have done so before the institution of the instant consumer complaint when the complainant was approaching them for refund.  The OPs awoke from their slumber probably only after receipt of notice from this Commission (erstwhile Forum) and shot off letter dated 21.8.2019 cancelling the policy. If the policy can be cancelled on 21.8.2019 and the amount refunded, same could have been done earlier also and possibly that would have been the end of dispute.  However, the OPs forced the complainant to approach this Commission for the refund of her amount and thereby caused harassment to her. Thus, the OPs are proved to be deficient in rendering proper service and the complainant needs to be suitably compensated for the inconvenience and harassment caused to her. 
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under :-

1. to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved qua OP-3, therefore, the consumer complaint qua it stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
18/08/2020	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President