BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 786 of 2017
Date of Institution: 1.11.2017
Date of Decision: 27.6.2019
Sh. Paramjit Singh son of Sh. Sawinder Pal Singh resident of village Gopalpura Kathunangal, Amritsar 143502 (Punjab) 9919888876
Complainant
Versus
- PNB Metlife India Insurance Co.Ltd., having registered office at Brigade Seshamal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560004 through authorized Signatory
- PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., having branch office at SCO No. 35, 3rd Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar 143001 through branch manager
- The Superintendent (posts) Indian Postal Department, having office opposite New Rialto Cinema, Court Road, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Nitin Chaudhary,Advocate and Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : None
Coram
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
Ms.Harvimal Dogra,Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Harvimal Dogra, Member
1. Present complaint is filed by complainant Sh.Paramjit Singh against the opposite party PNB Metlife India Insurance and others u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has taken Insurance policy bearing No. 20890198 dated 31.7.2012 for the period of 7 years from the opposite party in which there is a survival benefit (money back) clause as per which certain amount of Insurance policy is returned to the insured after certain period. The complainant has been regularly paying the annual premium to the opposite party/Insurance company which has been paid upto date . The survival benefit under the said Insurance policy was due to the complainant regarding which the complainant approached opposite party No.2. But the officials of opposite parties have been delaying the matter on one pretext or the other . The complainant had took the Insurance policy on 31.7.2012 and he has already paid five annual premiums and only two annual premiums were left and in this respect on 12.9.2016 the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 for making the payment of the annual premium and enquired about the survival benefit which is due to him from the officials of opposite party No.2. officials of opposite party No.2 started claiming that cheque of the said survival benefit i.e. money back has been sent at their end and the same has been sent by them vide registered post receipt No. 237816716 dated 3.1.2017 and the same was received by the complainant. The complainant was stunned to know the same because he had not received any cheque from opposite party No.2. Hence he rechecked and re-verified the matter and found that the cheque of his survival benefit was received by some other person namely Rashpal Singh, who is completely unknown to the complainant. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and told about cheating and fraud committed with him by the opposite parties as well as opposite party No.3 and the unknown person namely Rashpal Singh has received the said cheque and further requested to stop payment of the said cheque or reissue the new cheque in his favour. The complainant further alleged that officials of opposite party No.2 got signatures of the complainant on some blank form and blank papers and assured the complainant that a new cheque of his survival benefit shall be prepared and sent to him very soon. The complainant also moved a complaint dated 29.5.2017 to the ACP (South) Amritsar , wherein it has mentioned that a cheque of the survival benefit was due to him but it was sent by opposite party No.2 wrongly to some Rachpal Singh and some other person Paramjit Singh has got encashed the said cheque by impersonating himself as complainant. Till date opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the policy taken by the complainant and has failed to make the payment to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 60,936.52 paise. Opposite party No. 3 has also failed to perform its duty of delivering the registered post to the complainant and has wrongly delivered the registered post addressed in the name of complainant to some Rashpal Singh. The complainant also served a notice dated 21.9.2017 upon both the opposite parties but till today no reply has been received. In this way complainant has suffered a lot at the hands of the opposite parties due to which mental pain, tension, harassment has been caused to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice . Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to immediately make payment of survival benefit due to the complainant under Insurance policy No. 20890198 dated 31.7.2012 ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 22000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed separate written versions.
3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in its written version has taken certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint of the complainant is false and fabricated ; that complainant has tried to mislead this Forum by baseless averments with no documentary proof on record. It is submitted that subject policy of the complainant was issued on 26.7.2012 on payment of first premium thereafter next two premium were also duly received . Then the next premium under subject policy was due on 24.7.2015 which was not paid by the complainant even in the grace period which lead to the lapse of the policy. On the request of the Insurance company the complainant was willing to revive the policy in the year 2016 by paying two due premiums . Thus accordingly required documents were requested . It is submitted that the complainant paid due premiums but did not submitted the medical documents requested by the opposite parties thus reinstatement request was rejected and two due premiums paid by the complainant amounting to Rs. 60936.52/- were refunded to the complainant vide cheque bearing No. 683096 in the name of complainant which was duly received by him thereby all liabilities of Insurance company were absolved ; that at the outset the present complaint is not maintainable subject the subject policy was in lapsed mode w.e.f. 24.7.2015 and same was never revived. Also it is settled law that revival of Insurance policy is pure discretion of the Insurance company and life assured cannot seek revival of lapsed policy as it is not a matter of right and policy revival would not automatically follow after fulfillment of policy conditions ; that free look period of the complainant expired and he never raised any allegation as to the non receipt of the policy documents neither before nor complainant raised such allegations in the present complaint. The complainant has duly paid second as well as third premiums under the subject policy for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 on due date i.e. 24.7.2013 and 24.7.2014. The fourth premium under the subject policy was due on 24.7.2015 however, it was not received even after grace period of 30 days ended on 24.8.2015. So the policy was lapsed as per clause 3.2 of the policy terms and conditions . Accordingly lapsation notice was sent to LA informing about the lapsation of the policy since 24.8.2015 and LA was also required to pay the renewal premium to enjoy benefits of the subject policy without any hindrance ; that as per clause 2.2 of subject policy survival benefit in the form of monthly income becomes payable after end of premium payment term which is 7 years under the subject policy thus monthly income becomes payable after 2019. However, it is pertinent to mention here that benefits are payable only in case policy is “in force” status where subject policy was lapsed in 2015 was never reinstated due to the negligence of LA to submit medical documents hence no benefits are payable under the said policy, the said clause has been reproduced herein :-
“Subject to the policy being in force for full sum assured and upon the end of the premium payment term, guaranteed monthly regular income as opted by you at inception will be payable on every monthly Anniversary during the payout period. The guaranteed monthly regular income payments shall commence from the monthly Anniversary date that immediately succeeds the completion of the premium payment term.”
4. Further the opposite party stated that the complainant is making a false and baseless demand of cheque bearing No.683096 through his complaint. Even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments not otherwise admitted that one Rashpal Singh has taken the said cheque of refund of the premium then how he could have encashed a cheque in the name of LA which is “Paramjit Singh”. Thus again making the case of the complainant suspicious on the face of it. So it is submitted that in view of the foregoing factual submission and documents produced on record, complainant is not entitled for any amount and the amount claimed as Rs. 60,936.52/- or any interest at any rate from any date under the policy and decision of Insurance company was justified on the basis of settled proposition of law and is supported by fact, evidence as well as by law. So this Forum may please be dismissed the case .
5. Opposite party No.3 appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed various material facts ; that complainant is estopped by act and conduct from filing the present complaint ; that complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form ; that brief history of the case is that complaint from Sh. Paramjit Singh resident of village Gopalpura was received on 6.6.2017 wherein it was mentioned that the speed post article No. 237816716DN containing a cheque in the name of complainant for the amount of Rs. 61000/- dated 3.1.2017 was posted by Metlife Office which was received at Ludhar branch office on 5.1.2017 but was received by Sh.Rashpal Singh instead of the complainant Sh.Paramjit Singh. The complainant submitted a complaint mentioning a wrong speed post article number as general speed post article bar code number is of format E-*********IN, without the name of office of booking and after the expiry of time period for preferring a complaint as by his own version the article was booked on 3.1.2017, therefore, the complaint of complainant is not maintainable. However, no original receipt was produced alongwith the complaint made by complainant. Hence there is no way to confirm the identity of complainant as the address of the article under reference since the office of booking has also not been mentioned . However, keeping in view the public interest, matter was got enquired and it came to light that a speed post article No. EM237816716IN was received at Ludhar branch office in Ludhar Branch office in account with Kathunangal sub office on 3.1.2017 and was delivered to Sh. Rashpal Singh son of Sh. Paramjit Singh on 5.1.2017.
6. In order to prove the case complainant himself tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex/C-13 and closed his evidence.
7. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Vikas Verma,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajeev Sharma, Sr.Manager (Legal) Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of proposal form Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of welcome letter Ex.OP1,2/3, copy of benefit illustration Ex.OP1,2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.
8. On the other hand Sh. Vishal Bhardwaj,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Makhan Singh,Sr.Supdt.Posts Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
9. We have heard the contentions put forward by the Ld.counsel for the complainant. However, counsel for the opposite parties were not present at the time of arguments and it seems that counsel for the opposite parties were not willing and interested to pursue the case. We have also examined the entire material on record and gave a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
10. After going through the entire file and the relief claimed by the complainant , we find that there are three main contentions for consideration i.e. whether the complainant is entitled to the survival benefit i.e. money back or not , secondly whether the cheque was delivered to Rashpal Singh and thirdly whether opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
11. Before imparting with the main issue in dispute , we want to consider the liability of opposite party No.3 for that we have gone through the complaint in which complainant has alleged that opposite party No.3 has failed to perform its duty of delivering the registered post to the complainant and has wrongly delivered the registered post to some Rashpal Singh. In order to give strength to this claim the complainant has not produced any document on the file to prove that the opposite party No.3 is negligent . We are of the view that this aspect is to be proved by opposite parties No.1 & 2 by bringing on file original postal receipt from where we can ascertain that the said cheque was sent to the complainant on correct address or it contained the address of some other person. But this aspect is not proved by opposite parties No.1 & 2 . So we come to the conclusion that opposite party No.3 is not having any liability as no deficiency in service is proved against him. So the complaint against opposite party No.3 is not maintainable.
12. From the bare perusal of the file it reveals that the factum with regard to the purchase of the Insurance policy is not disputed. Now coming to the pivotal question whether complainant is entitled for the survival benefit or not. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy. The survival benefit payable under this policy in accordance with clause 2.2 which reads as under:-
2.2 Survival Benefits
2.2.1 Subject to the policy being in force for full sum assured and upon the end of the premium payment term, guaranteed monthly regular income as opted by you at inception will be payable on every monthly Anniversary during the payout period. The guaranteed monthly regular income payments shall commence from the Monthly Anniversary date that immediately succeeds the completion of the Premium Payment Term.”
13. According to this clause we can say that complainant is entitled to the guaranteed benefit only after the end of the premium payment term which is 7 years which means that when the complainant had already paid 7 annual premiums i.e. till the year 2019, then only guaranteed monthly regular income will be payable on every monthly Anniversary during the payout period. It has been alleged by the complainant himself that he had already paid 5 annual premiums and two annual premiums are still left. So he is not entitled to any survival benefit. Moreover, if the complainant had pleaded in his complaint that terms and conditions were not given to him at the time of taking the policy, then the matter would have been different. But in this case the complainant has not alleged that the terms and conditions were not given to him by the opposite parties. So it will be presumed that the complainant has received the terms and conditions as well as he is aware of all the terms and conditions . So accordingly, the complainant is not entitled for survival benefit.
14. Now regarding the second contention that whether the cheque was delivered to Rashpal Singh and whether it was encashed by some other person, who got encashed it by impersonating himself as complainant. However, this contention of the complainant is also rejected as the complainant has failed to produce any document or evidence on the file to prove this contention.
15. So with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as such complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum (Rachna Arora)
Presiding Member
Dated: 27.6.2019
(Harvimal Dogra)
Member
