Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/27/2015

Aruna Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Metlife India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Hitender Kansal Adv.

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	27/2015
Date of Institution	:	20.01.2015
Date of Decision	:	18.11.2015

 

                                                

                                                         

1.      Aruna Gupta wife of Sh.Dhani Ram Gupta, H.No.663, Ward No.5, Sugar Mill Road Morinda, District Rupnagar (Ropar).

 

2.      Dhani Ram Gupta son of Sh.Jati Ram, H.No.663, Ward No.5, Sugar Mill Road Morinda, District Rupnagar (Ropar).

 

                                      ...  Complainants.

Versus

1.      PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at SCO No.2463-2464, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh -160022 through its Branch Manager.

 

2^nd Address: PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Plot No.28, Industrial and Business Park, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

2.      PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office at Brigade Sesharmahal, 5 Vani Vilas Road, Basarvanagudi, Bangalore-560004.

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Hitender Kansal and Sh.Paradeep Sharma, Advocate for                the complainants.

                   Sh.Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainants is that  in May, 2013, they were approached by one of the representatives of the OPs who induced them with various benefits under single premium Life Insurance Policy and relying upon the representations to be true, they agreed to purchase the single time premium policies and signed blank proposal forms respectively.  The complainant No.1 paid the single premium amount of Rs.72000/- vide cheque dated 30.05.2013 whereas the complainant No.2 paid the single premium amount of Rs.45000/-. Thereafter on 24.08.2013, they received the policy NOs.21098165 and 21089604 respectively. It has further been averred that after receiving the said policies and going through the contents of the same, they were shocked to find that the Sales Executive of OP No.1 in connivance with other officials of the Company filled the wrong information on the application form as policy period was mentioned as 15 years instead of single premium, signatures were forged, wrong contact number were mentioned and employee details were also wrong and got issued wrong policies to them and  as such they approached Mr.Sachin, an officer of OP No.1 who assured them that the amount deposited by them would be refunded and asked to make written request for refunding the amount. According to the complainants, the policies in question were received on 24.08.2013 and they vide separate letters dated 27.08.2013 exercised the option to return the policies in question within the free look period of 15 days by stating the reasons for cancellation thereof and the said letters were duly acknowledged by the OPs. According to the complainants, the OPs have cancelled the policy  issued to the complainant No.2-Dhani Ram and refunded the principal amount after three months, however, the policy in respect of the complainant No.1-Aruna Gupta has not been cancelled.  Thereafter the complainant visited the office of OP No.1  to know the status of refund but she was asked to wait for some more time as her grievance was being looked by the Senior Offices of the OPs. It has further been averred that the complainants even made the complaints vide letters dated 24.12.2013 to the SSP, Chandigarh. According to the complainants, the OPs have wrongly withheld the amount paid by the complainant No.1 and did not refund the amount till date for no reason which amount to deficiency in service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
2.           In their written statement, the OPs took the preliminary objection that the disputed questions of facts cannot be adjudicated before this Forum and therefore, the complainants should seek redressal of their grievances before the Civil Court. However, the OPs have admitted the fact with regard to the issuance of the policies in question to the complainants. However, it has also been admitted that the request for cancellation of both the policies in question were received by them on 27.08.2013. It has also been admitted that the amount towards the Insurance Policy issued to the complainant No.2 has been refunded to him through NEFT.  However, it has been pleaded that the policy to the complainant No.1 has been sent through speed post on 11.06.2013. It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the request letter dated 27.08.2013 from the complainant No.1, the OPs requested her to submit the dual signature form attested by the bank on 30.08.2013 and the dual signature format was received by the OP on 07.09.2013. It has further been pleaded that after going through the documents, it was found that there was no signature mis-match and accordingly, the request for the complainant No.1 was rejected.  It has further been pleaded that the request for cancellation of the policy made by the complainant No.1 was beyond the free look period of 15 days and as such she is not entitled for cancellation of the policy.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating their own.
4.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record and the written arguments.
5.           After giving our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
6.           The stand of the complainants that the policies in question were received by them on 24.08.2013 and the request for cancellation of the policies was made by them vide separate letters dated 27.08.2013 within the free look period and the same were duly received by the OPs on the date itself. However, the OPs have returned the principal amount in respect of the one Insurance Policy  No.21089604 issued to the complainant No.2 on 30.05.2013 and they have failed to return the principal amount in respect of the policy No.21098165 issued to the complainant No.1  on 08.06.2013 despite the fact that the request for cancellation of the policy was made within the free look period of 15 days. 
7.           On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the request for cancellation of the policy issued to the complainant No.2 was received within the free look period and as such the policy was cancelled and the principal amount was returned to him. Whereas there was no mis-match in the signatures of the complainant No.1 and moreover, the request for the cancellation of the policy was received beyond the free look period of 15 days and as such she was not entitled to the cancellation of the policy in question.
8.           The onus to prove that the request made by the complainant No.1 was beyond the free look period was upon the OPs. In order to prove the same, they have alleged that the policy No.21098165 was sent to complainant No.1 on 11.06.2013 through speed post. Surprisingly, to prove their assertion, they have failed to place on record any reliable and cogent documentary evidence in this regard. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the plea of the OPs that they have sent the policy in question to complainant No.1 on 11.06.2013 cannot be believed.  We have left with no other alternative just to accept the version of the complainants that both the policies were received by them on 24.08.2013 and as such the request made by the complainant No.1 was also well within the free look period of 15 days.   Interestingly, the policy issued to the complainant No.2 on 30.05.2013 was cancelled within the free look period whereas the policy issued to complainant No.1 on 08.06.2013 was not cancelled on the ground that there was no signature mismatch and the request for cancellation of the policy was beyond the free look period despite the fact that the request for cancellation of both the policies were made vide letters dated 27.08.2013. It is apt to mention here that in the letter dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure C-4), the complainant No.1 has sought the cancellation of the policy not only on ground of her false signatures but also on other grounds. In the said letter, the complainant No.2 had specifically stated that she was told that the policy in question was a single premium policy whereas the premium paying term of the policy was 15 years.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complainants were right in requesting the OPs for cancellation of the policy in question.   The OPs have thus, committed deficiency in service by not accepting the request of complainant No.1 for cancellation of the policy in question.
9.           As regards the plea of the OPs regarding the disputed questions of facts is concerned, the same is not sustainable in view of the law settled down in the case reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC) Dr. Merchant & Ors versus Shrinath Chaturvedi in which it was held as under:-

“10.            In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a contention that services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression “service” as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. That contention was negatived by the Court. Further from this decision, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the Commission to ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief in case complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the proceeding. But the Court has specially held that issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies.

11. Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court”.

10.           Since the complainant No.2 has already been refunded the premium amount by the OPs after the receipt of the request letter for cancellation of the policy from him and he has also not raised any protest with the OPs after the receipt of the said amount and, therefore, he is not entitled for any interest.
11.           No other point has been urged by the Counsel for the parties.
12.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-
    1. To cancel the Insurance Policy No.21098165 and return the premium amount of Rs.72,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the request letter for cancellation of the policy i.e. 27.08.2013 (Annexure C-4) to complainant No.1.
    2. To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to complainant No.1 as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
    3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- as costs of ligation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides litigation costs.

13.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.11.2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER