Haryana

StateCommission

A/684/2018

SUSHIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.SANDHU

13 Jul 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                            

 

                                                First Appeal No.           684 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution:       24.05.2018

                                                Date of Decision:         13.07.2018

 

 

Sushil Kumar son of Shri Ratti Ram, resident of 110, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

…..Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Brigade Seshamahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 through its authorized signatory.

 

2.      PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

3.      Punjab National Bank, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

 

For the parties:  Shri Dinesh Mayura, Advocate for the appellant

 

                              

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Sushil Kumar-complainant purchased Met Monthly Income Plan Policy from MetLife India Insurance Company Limited-opposite parties No.1 and 2 (for short, ‘Insurance Company’) vide insurance policy (Annexure A-2) dated July 06^th, 2012.  Duration of coverage was June 27^th, 2012 to June 27^th, 2037.  Amount of coverage was Rs.7,20,000/-.  Installment premium was Rs.71,582/-.  Frequency of premium was annual.  Premium paying period was ten years.  The Insurance Company while issuing the policy requested the complainant to read the policy terms and conditions carefully and report any discrepancy or disagreement within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the policy.  In case there was any objection to any of the terms and conditions, the complainant could return the policy.  After paying the premium for two years, the complainant asked the Insurance Company that he was informed by one Ms. Gurmeet Kaur that policy was for three years and not for ten years.  The Insurance Company did not adhere to his request. He filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short, ‘District Forum’). 

2.      The District Forum vide order dated April 17^th, 2018 dismissed the complaint.

3.      Aggrieved of the order, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has fairly stated that in the policy, the premium paying term was ten years and not three years as stated by the complainant.  He has also conceded the complainant did not lead any documentary evidence to prove that the policy premium paying term was three years instead of ten years. 

5.      It was specifically stated by the Insurance Company that at the time of issuance of the policy (Annexure A-2) that in case there was any objection to any of the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy, the complainant had right to return the policy. Another specific direction was given in the policy that terms and conditions of the policy should be read carefully.  Since the paying premium term of the policy was ten years, it cannot be said that it was for three years as pleaded by the complainant. 

6.      In view of above, no irregularity is discernible in the impugned order.  The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced 13.07.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK