Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/628/2019

Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Devinder Kumar Adv.

27 Nov 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	628 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	12.07.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	27.11.2020

 

 

 

 

 

Partap Singh son of Sh.Rishal Singh, aged about 62 years, r/o House No.1021, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.68-69, 2^nd & 3rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]  PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office: Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wingh, Raheja Towers, MG Road, Banglore 560001, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

3]  Ms.Rekha, Employee of PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.68-69, 2^nd & 3rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

4]  Mr.Rohan, Employee of PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.68-69, 2^nd & 3rd Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh

 

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

                               

For Complainant      : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate

For OPs No.1 & 2           : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

For OPs No.3 & 4           : OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.   

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

          The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant, Senior Citizen of 62 years old retired official, getting pension, is maintaining savings bank account with Punjab National Bank, Sector 19, Chandigarh. It is averred that after retirement in Jan., 2018, the complainant visited his above said bank for investment of Rs.5 lacs and there he met OPs No.3 & 4, who allured him to invest such amount in PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited.  It is also averred that OPs NO.3 & 4 informed the complainant that his amount will be invested in policy just like Fixed Deposit as one time investment and after a period of five years, he would get benefit of 8.5% interest per annum on the invested amount apart from life cover of Rs.35 lacs.  It is stated that the complainant being allured by such assurance given by OPs No.3 & 4 signed on some blank papers and accordingly an amount of Rs.5 lacs was transferred to the account of OP Company on 10.1.2018 (Ann.C-1).  Accordingly, OP Company issued Policy No.22442095 in favour of complainant (Ann.C-2).  However, on receipt of policy, when the complainant go through it, he was shocked to see the same to be different as assured by OPs NO.3 & 4.  It is also stated that the complainant immediately contacted OPs NO.3 & 4 and reported the matter whereupon they assured the complainant that his amount has been invested only for one time investment and he had to wait only for five years to get refund along with other benefits.  It is submitted that on 9.1.2019 the complainant was shocked to receive a message on his mobile from OP Company for due installment on 13.1.2019 against the said policy and on 14.1.2019 an amount of Rs.5 lacs has been debited from the account of complainant and transferred to the account of OP Company  (Ann.C-3). Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the OPs and vide letter dated 24.1.2019, followed by remainders dated 28.1.2019 and 21.2.2019 requested to cancel the policy and refund entire amount (Ann.C-4 to C-6).  However, the OPs transferred only an amount of Rs.5 lacs to the account of complainant, but failed to refund the remaining amount of Rs.5 lacs with interest (Ann.C-7). The complainant again submitted letter dated 18.3.2019 for refund of the remaining amount of Rs.5 lacs, but the OPs illegally rejected it vide letter dated 19.3.2019 & 20.6.2019 (Ann.C-9 & 11). Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant himself opted for a high sum assured policy of Rs.35 lacs in his name at the age of 62 years and despite the receipt of the policy document, he remained silent and enjoyed the benefit of high sum assured of Rs.35 lacs.  It is also stated that when the 2^nd year premium was deducted from his account as per Auto Debit Option opted by him, he then started raising the dispute about the policy. It is further stated that the complainant was made clear that his initial premium amount cannot be refunded at this stage as he has already availed the benefit of Rs.35 lacs for one year and as per policy, applicable administration charges etc. are liable to be deducted from it.  It is pleaded that the said amount can only be refunded after the lock-in period of 5 years as per terms & conditions of the policy and when the complainant agreed for the same, the OPs refunded 2^nd year premium to the complainant on 6.3.2019.  However, the complainant raised the issue of refund of initial premium amount.  It is also pleaded that the initial premium amount can be released only after lock in period of 5 years and at present i.e. 7.1.2020 the fund value of the policy is Rs.4,21,298.82ps and the said amount shall be payable after lock-in period, which is known to the complainant.  It is submitted that if anything would have gone wrong with the complainant then the liability of the answering OPs was Rs.35 lacs. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

         OPs No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. Post on 19.7.2019 and hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 2.9.2019.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs made in their 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]        From the submissions made and perusing the record, it reveals that the selling of the policy in question 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 a senior citizen aged about 60 years at the time of issuing the policy in question has been befooled & duped by the OPs by issuing a policy having premium of Rs.5 lacs annually to be paid for 5 years term for Policy term of 39 years having maturity dated as 13.1.2057 i.e. when complainant became 100 years old.  The OPs did not place on record the copy of proposal form to show their bona-fide, which draws an adverse inference against them and support the version of the complainant of opting Single Premium Policy. The OPs have also not placed on record the copies of the income proof so supplied by the complainant to establish the capacity of the complainant to pay such high premium of Rs.5 lakhs annually under the policy in question.

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 Parties refunded the second year premium only, which has been deducted through ECS mode, but the first year premium has not been refunded.  The OPs also claimed that the complainant had enjoyed the benefit under the policy for one year.   

8]       The Opposite Parties vide letter dated 20.6.2019 (Ann.C-11) 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 they have no reason to believe that the policy has been sold with wrong assurance as alleged. 

9]       The record before us transpires that it is beyond the capacity of the complainant to pay annual premium of Rs.5 lacs as it is clear from Pension Payment Order (Ann.C-12) of the complainant, filed along with rejoinder.  In the absence of any cogent evidence on record, we cannot presume that the complainant is otherwise having the capacity to pay such huge premium of Rs.5 lakh annually.  For the reasons best known to the Ops, they failed to place on record the proposel form filled by the complainant and the documents, if any, supplied by the complainant to show his capacity to meet with requirement of the policy in question of paying of annual premium of Rs.5 lakhs for five years.  Also it sounds absurd that a person of 60 years age would go for a policy, the proceeds of which shall be paid when he attains the age of 100 years as the tenure of the policy in question is of 39 years having maturity date as 13.1.2057  

10]       From the above facts & circumstances of the case and discussion, it is proved that the complainant has become the 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 the premium amount Rs.500000/- (Rs.Five Lacs) to the complainant, along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of deposit 25.1.2018 till realization;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and indulging into unfair trade practice;

[c] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- 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 OPs shall be liable to pay/refund the premium amount Rs.500000/- (Rs.Five Lacs) to the complainant, along with interest @10% p.a. instead of 6% p.a., from the date of deposit 25.1.2018 till realization, apart from above relief of compensation and litigation expenses.

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

 

Announced

27^th Nov., 2020                                                                                                                                                                                 sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER