Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/760/2016

Ms. Saroj Kumari Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

J.N. Gupta

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/760/2016
Date of Institution	:	08/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	30/06/2017

 

 

Saroj Kumari Sharma w/o Sh. B.R. Kant, Retired as Deputy Nursing Sister (DNS), Advance Cardiac Centre, Cardiology Department, PGI Hospital, Chandigarh. R/o H.No.5, Type 11-H, Colony PGI Hospital, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, through its Incharge, (Chief Operating Officer), SCO No. 2463-64 (2^nd Floor), Near Federal Bank, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022.

          Second Address:

          PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited, through its Incharge, (Chief Operating Officer), SCO 68-69, (2^nd & 3^rd Floor), Sector 17-C, Chandigarh – 160017.

2.      The Insurance Ombudsman, O/o the Insurance Ombudsman, SCO 101-103 (2^nd Floor), Batra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh – 160017. [Deleted vide order dated 15.11.2016].

3.      Grievance Redressal Officer, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, Brigade Seshmahal, 5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavanguli, Bangalore – 560004.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

For complainant	:	Sh. J.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 3	:	Sh. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Deleted.

                       

PER S.K. SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Ms. Saroj Kumari Sharma, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited & Others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that enticed by the assurance made by the Agent of the OPs No.1 & 3 of good returns on the purchase of their policies, the Complainant purchased an Insurance Policy No. 21333203 on 07.05.2014 by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. After going through the policy terms & conditions, on realizing that the Insurance Policy in question was sold to him, just to extract money, by misstating true facts, the Complainant represented the OPs vide representation dated 04.11.2014 to cancel the said Policy and refund the entire amount deposited, along with interest (Annexure C-2). However, when nothing positive could come out, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 21.09.2015 upon the OPs (Annexure C-7), but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since no relief was claimed by the Complainant against Opposite Party No.2, hence it was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 15.11.2016.
3.         In their joint written reply, OPs No.1 & 3 have admitted that the complainant purchased “Met Smart Platinum” Policy by paying the requisite premium of Rs.1,00,000/-. It has been averred that on the basis of information provided, Policy bearing No. 21333203 was issued to the Complainant on 30.06.2014 with premium paying terms of 10 years. Thereafter, all the policy terms & conditions were sent to the Complainant on 02.07.2014. In case the Complainant was disagreed with the terms & conditions of the Policy, he should return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the same, as per Clause 7.1 of the terms & conditions of the Policy, which he did not, and rather vide letter dated 04.11.2014, for the first time, requested to cancel the Policy and refund the premium amount, therefore, he was not entitled for the cancellation of the policy.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs No.1 & 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In his replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs No.1 & 3 and reiterated his own.  It has been contended that once the Complainant submitted a written request to refund her deposited amount, the OPs were bound to refund the deposited amount. 
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have scanned the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
7.          The main grievance of the Complainant is that the OPs issued the policy in question by misrepresentation and by committing fraud. Also, when after receipt of the Policy, the Complainant requested the OPs to cancel the same and to refund the money paid, the OPs failed to adhere to his claim, inspite of repeated requests. We have appreciated the entire documentary evidence placed on record and gathered that Annexure OP-1 contains a copy of the proposal form along with the terms and conditions of the policy. The same was admittedly received by the Complainant on 03.07.2014, along with the welcome letter. Clause 7.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy taken by the Complainant, clearly stipulates that the policy may be cancelled by giving written notice within 15 days of receiving the policy. It has come on record that vide letter dated 04.11.2014 (Annexure Ex. C-2), the Complainant for the first time requested the OPs to cancel the Policy and refund the premium amount. Since the said request was beyond the stipulated period of 15 days as enshrined in Clause 7.1 of the terms and conditions of the policy ibid, therefore, to our mind, the Complainant is not entitled for the cancellation of the policy and the OPs are not liable to entertain any request after the expiry of the free look period of 15 days. 
8.         For the reasons recorded supra, the conclusion becomes irresistible that complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service & unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties. Thus, the Complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.       
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
30/06/2017	[S.K. Sardana]		[SURJEET KAUR]
	Member		Presiding Member