Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/159/2018

I.P. Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sangram Singh Adv.

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

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

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	159 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13.03.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	04.02.2019

 

 

 

 

 

I.P.Singh s/o Baldeo Singh, r/o H.No.3182, Ground Floor, Sector 45-D, Chandigarh.     

 

             …………….Complainant

Versus

 

1]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, having its registered office at Unit No.701, 702, 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, #26/27, M.G.Road, Bangaluru, Karnataka 560001 through its authorised representative.

 

2]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, having its branch Office at 2^nd & 3^rd Floor, SCO No.68-69, Sector 17-Bm Chandigarh 160017

 

………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                    MR.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER

           

 

For complainant:   Sh.Sangram Singh, Advocate

For OP(s)     :    Sh.Ramnik Gupta, Advocate

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased two Met Suvidha Policies from Opposite Parties i.e.

         Policy No.20869344 for Rs.20,000/-  

Policy No.20871039  for Rs.25,000/-  

which were issued on 6.7.2012 and received by the complainant on 15.7.2012. It is averred that after receiving the said policies, the complainant realized that the terms of the policies were in stark contrast to the terms that had been promised by OP's Sales Executive.  It is stated that the complainant has opted for 5 year terms period for both the policies in the proposal form, which has illegally & wrongly been extended to 15 years period.  As such, the complainant on 25.7.2012, well within 15 days look out period, filed a written request to OPs at their local branch in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh along with policy documents for cancellation of said policies and refund of amount thereof with interest (Ann.C-1).  Thereafter, the complainant received a letter dated 30.8.2012 from the Opposite Parties for sending a dual signature form and a copy of specimen signature, which the complainant complied with on 26.10.2012.  Thereafter, the Opposite Parties instead of refunding the amount of policies, as requested, again demanded dual signature form and specimen signature proof vide letter dated 17.6.2014, which again the complainant complied with.  It is also averred that even Department of Post vide reply dated 1.12.2015 clarified that the registered letters sent by the complainant to the OPs at their registered office at Bengaluru had been delivered.  It is submitted that the OPs despite being sent numerous correspondence and supplied with all documents, as and when asked, still did not make the refund of policy amount and instead after much long period, vide letter dated 13.7.2017 informed the complainant that they have not received his cancellation request within free look period (Ann.C-10).  Alleging the said act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant during free look period on receipt of policies for cancellation. It is stated that the Opposite Parties never in receipt of any complaint from complainant during the free look period.  It is stated that the registered letter dated 25.7.2012 was received which was replied back vide letter dated 30.8.2012 requesting the complainant/him to submit dual signature form & copy of specimen signature, however, the same was never received.  It is also stated that the complainant failed to comply with the requirements raised by the OP Company thereby rendering himself ineligible to get refund of premium.  It is submitted that although the complainant had written numerous letters, however, he had utterly failed to fulfill the requirement in time, as raised by the Company, hence his request could not be processed.  It is also submitted that the policies in question has been issued as proposed by the complainant. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant took two Insurance Policies – Met Suvidha, as per the following details:-

        

Policy Number	Premium Amount paid
20869344	Rs.20,000/-
20871039	Rs.25,000/-

 

7]       The policies in question admittedly were received by the complainant on 15.7.2012.  The complainant vide letter dated 25.7.2012 (Ann.C-1) took the matter with Manager, MetLife Insurance, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, for cancellation of the said policies.  He handed over the letter in the office of Manager, MetLife Insurance, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and also later posted the same on 23.8.2012. 

 

8]       The complainant has forwarded his request for cancellation of the policies within 15 days of free look period as permissible under the terms & conditions of the policies.

 

9]       The complainant has accused the OPs regarding misrepresentation by their Sales Executive Mr.Mohit while getting the proposal form filled from him.  As per the complainant, he specifically requested for 5 years term period in both the policies to which the Sales Executive agreed, but on receipt of the policies on 15.7.2012 from the OPs, he was astonished to read policy terms as 15 years instead of 5 years, as proposed by him.

 

10]      In the proposal forms placed on file as Ann.1 & 2 at Page No.15 & 20, the policy term mentioned as 15 years seems to be altered.  There is inordinate gap in between the figure “1” & “5”, which never occurs in natural flow of writing.  From the perusal of proposal forms, it is noticed that the proposals were originally written for “5” years term, but the OP's functionaries while sitting in their office at their own added the figure “1” with “5”, just to make long term policies for 15 years, which must have been done to benefit the OP Company and also to get bumpy commissions on the long terms tenure policies.  This malpractice on the part of OPs is nothing, but an unfair trade practice on their part.  The Opposite Parties in the present case has done mischief by altering the terms of the policy from “5” years to “15” years, without the consent & knowledge of the complainant and as such deserves severe reprimand. The policies tempered against the will of the complainant, are void ab-initio and as such, the complainant is not bound by any terms & conditions in reference thereto.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties though admitted the receipt of letter dated 25.7.2012 from the complainant, as in Para No.3 of the reply – Page 8’ but still did not refund the premium amount on flimsy ground.  Thus, the Opposite Parties are found to be deficient in their service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. 

 

11]      Keeping into consideration the entire facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the compliant is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the total premium amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 6.7.2012 (date of issue of policies) till realization.  The OPs shall also pay a compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment & agony, with litigation cost of Rs.7000/-. 

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost, as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced

4^th February, 2019                                                         Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER