Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/17/2019

Ishwar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vikram Tandon Adv.

26 Aug 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	17 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	26.08.2020

 

 

 

 

 

Ishwar Singh son of Sh.Sardara Ram, resident of House No.1173, Deep Complex, Hallo Majra, U.T., Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO # 68-69, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager/Manager/Authorized Agent/ Authorized Representative.

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

                               

For Complainant      : Sh.Vikram Tondon, Advocate

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

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

          The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has been approached by one representative of OP, who advised him to purchase PNB Metlife Endowment Savings+ Plan saying that he had to deposit Rs.One Lac once and after 10 years, he will get an amount of more than Rs.5 lacs. It is averred that believing the said assurance, the complainant, a driver by profession and matriculate, issued a cheque.  It is also averred that the representative of the OP filled the form as well as details in the cheque amounting to Rs.1,03,750/- and thereafter an insurance policy Ann.C-1 was issued against premium of Rs.1,03,750/-.  However, the complainant was shocked to receive an SMS in Jan., 2018 for deposit of another premium of Rs.One lakh.  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of Mr.Rekha Shah, representative of OP, but he did not pay any heed. Ultimately, the complainant on 1.2.2018 requested the OP to cancel his policy expressing his inability to deposit such amount, but the same was declined by the OP vide letter dated 5.2.2018 (Ann.c-3 & C-4).  It is submitted that the policy in question has been issued to the complainant under misrepresentation and that the terms & conditions of the policy has never been read over to the complainant in vernacular as he does not know English language.  Alleging the above act & conduct of the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence present complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the issuance of the policy in question stated that the policy in question was issued based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declaration made in the proposal form duly executed and submitted by the complainant.  It is stated that the premium paying term in the policy in question was 5 years and it is very well in the knowledge of complainant.  It is submitted that as per proposal form submitted by the complainant, he disclosed his qualification as Graduate and owner of Transport Bus Chandigarh, which he is running from last 25 years.  It is also submitted that the complainant disclosed his Annual Income as Rs.9 lacs having PAN Card No.AZAPS3980L  (Ann.C-1).  It is pleaded that the complainant did not seek cancellation of policy in question within free look period of 15 days if he was not satisfied with its terms & conditions.  It is also pleaded that as per policy, the complainant was required to pay premium for five years regularly, but he did not pay the premium falling due on 12.1.2018, as such his policy was lapsed.  It is stated that at present the policy of complainant is in lapsed mode and he can still revive the policy as per terms & conditions as the revival period is two years from the first unpaid installment of premium. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying all other allegations, the OP has 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 the OP 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 perused the entire record.

 

6]       The record reveals that the complainant obtained PNB Metlife Endowment Savings+ Plan under the impression as created by the representative of the OPs that he had to deposit an amount of Rs.One Lakh for one year only and after 10 years, he will get an amount of more than Rs.5 lacs including bonus etc.  It is the submission on behalf of complainant that the complainant being not well read was befooled by the representative of the OP Company alluring him to subscribe for the above said plan with the above benefits under the policy.  It is submitted that the complainant was surprised to get call from OP Company, after one year, for deposit of next premium and the complainant when encountered with such demand, immediately approached the OP with the request to cancel the policy as he has been wrongly issued the policy stating the wrong benefits by their representative and also clarified that he is not of the position to pay such huge premium.

 

7]       Contrary, it is the defence of the ld.Counsel for the OP that the complainant is a Graduate person and he is running his own transport business.  It is contended that the complainant has signed the proposal form and was issued the policy accordingly. The complainant has annual income of more than Rs.9 lacs.  It is also contended that due to non-deposit of next due premium under the policy due on 12.1.2018, the policy is in lapsed mode now and the complainant is having the prerogative to get the policy revived within 2 years waiting period by depositing due premiums. Further submitted that the complainant has not sought cancellation of the policy within free look period available under the policy. 

 

8]       The thorough perusal of the record submitted by both the parties, the averment and submissions made, reveals that the complainant has became victim of selling policy by mis-statement & mis-representation by the agent of OP Company.  There is no record brought forward by the OP to show the bona-fide regarding the qualification, that he is a graduate, as claimed in the written statement (contrarily the complainant claim himself to be matriculate only).  No record showing the income proof of the complainant to prove his capacity to pay such premium annually under the policy, has made part of record.

          It has duly been established in the catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is incumbent upon the OP to read & explain all the terms & conditions of the policy to the proposer/subscriber.  No such evidence has been made part of the record revealing that the complainant was ever explained the terms & conditions of the policy.  Moreover, the terms & conditions, as evident vide Ann.C-1, are in such miniature font that one is unable to go through the same easily. Had the complainant been aware about the factual terms & conditions of the policy earlier or had the capacity to deposit the premium of Rs.1 lakh annually for further 4 years more, he would not have approached the OP to get the policy cancelled.  The bona-fide of the complainant reflects from the immediate request made with the OP on 1.2.2018 (Ann.C-3), (duly received by the OP Company), when he received call from OP for deposit of next premium due on 12.1.2018. Thus the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice is established on the part of OP as they sold policy product in question to the complainant by misrepresentation & mis-statement.  

9]      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of OP is proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Party to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,03,750/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit till its actual payment. The OP is also directed to pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation & litigation cost.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay additional compensatory 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

26^th August, 2020                                                                                                                                                sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER