Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/454/2017

Prem Lata - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	454 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	08.06.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	05.02.2018

 

 

 

 

Prem Lata widow of Late Sh.Madan Lal, R/o #1092, Ram Darbar, Phase-2, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.2463-64, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd., Unit NO.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Tower, 26/27, M.G.Road, Bangalore through its Managing Director.

   ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

                               

 

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Umesh Kumar, Advocate

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant having her Savings Bank Account NO.3247000105387286 with Punjab National Bank, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, visited it on 23.10.2015 for investing her savings in the shape of FDR.  It is averred that there one agent of Opposite Party approached the complainant and assured her that her money shall be kept in FDR with a special scheme and asked her to give a cheque of Rs.30,000/-, which she gave and also signed on some blank forms.  However, when the complainant visited the bank after a considerable period and asked about the status of her FDR, she was told that the FDR is not there, but one policy has been issued in her name mentioning her income to be Rs.2.50 lacs (Ann.C-1).  It is further averred that the complainant got the policy checked from the bank officials and she immediately raised her grievance with OPs vide letter dated 9.3.2017 (Ann.C-2).  It is submitted that the complainant received letter dated 18.3.2017 from Opposite Parties asking her to submit income proof and last six months bank statement (Ann.C-3), which she submitted, but still the OPs vide letter dated 27.4.2017 refused to cancel the policy and refund the premium on ground that the same is beyond 15 days free look period (Ann.C-4).  It is also submitted that the complainant gave in writing to the Opposite Parties that her income is low and as such, she cannot pay the premium every year, but still they did not refund the premium. It is also submitted that the complainant cannot read or write English language and the blank forms have probably been got signed from her.  It is alleged that the said act of OPs not only amounts to mis-selling but also a deficient act coupled with unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint has been filed.   

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the policy has been proposed by the complainant after understanding the terms & conditions of the policy. It is stated that the policy No.21712956 was issued to the complainant on 24.10.2015.  It is claimed that in case, the complainant was not agreed with the terms & conditions of the policy, she should have returned it within 15 days of its receipt.  Claimed further that she never requested for cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days and made a request only on 7.3.2017 seeking cancellation of the policy, which was rejected vide letter dated 27.4.2017 being beyond the free look period.  It is submitted that the complainant is an educated person and as such is fully aware of the terms & conditions of the policy contract. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of Opposite Parties made in the reply

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The selling of the policy in the present complaint is purely a case of mis-selling of the policy by mis-representation. It is gathered from the record that the complainant is not very well qualified and had merely passed 10+2, which reflects that she is unable to understand the technical loopholes of the policy issued to her, which are totally in English Vernacular and she had put her signature in Hindi Vernacular.  It further proves that the proposal form has not been filled by her and she had merely put her signatures on the proposal form and other documents after being carried away by the mis-representation made by the agent/representative of the OPs. 

 

7]       The record reveals that the moment the complainant became aware of the mis-selling of the policy, sought refund of the amount along with request to cancel the policy, in response to which, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 18.3.2017 (Ann.C-3) asked the complainant to submit the copy of the income proof along with last six months bank statement.  For the reasons best known to the OPs, they have not disclosed about the requirement and relevancy of those documents. They have also not placed on record the copies so supplied by the complainant to establish the capacity of the complainant to pay the annual premiums under the policy in question.

 

8]       The Opposite Parties vide letter dated 27.4.2017 wrongly declined the request of the complainant for cancellation of the policy and also declined the request for the refund of the amount stating that 15 days free look period has elapsed.  It has been observed that this stand of expiration of 15 days free look period could have been conveyed to the complainant at the first juncture when the first request for the cancellation of the policy and for refund of the premium amount was made with the Opposite Parties. It is suspected that what necessitated the OPs to ask the complainant vide letter dated 18.3.2017 for the income proof and last six months bank statement against the request for cancellation of the policy and for refund of the amount, whereas the policy is alleged to have been issued on the basis of the documents including income proof of the complainant. The record before us transpires that it is beyond the capacity of the complainant to pay annual premium of Rs.30,000/- as it is stated by the complainant on oath by filing duly sworn affidavit that her annual earning is much below Rs.2.50 lacs per annum, so claimed by the OPs.  This averment of the complainant seems genuine in the light of the circumstances/facts given in the present complaint, which reveals that the complainant is a Widow lady and having 2 dependent unmarried daughters and is earning a meager amount, which is less than Rs.2.5 lakh annually.

 

9]       From the above facts & circumstances of the case and discussion, it is proved that the complainant is a victim of mis-selling of the policy based  on mis-representation, which further discloses the unfair trade practice resorted to by the Opposite Parties besides deficiency in service.  Therefore, the present complaint stands allowed against the OPs with following directions:-

[a] To refund an amount Rs.30,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and indulging into unfair trade practice;

 

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. 

 

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay additional compensation cost of Rs.10000/- apart from above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

5^th February, 2018                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER