Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/497

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.S.Sabharwal Adv.

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:497 dated 24.10.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 26.08.2022.

 

Gurdeep Singh S/o. Sh. Harbans Singh, R/o. House No.231, Block H, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant 

•  

 

1. The PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No.701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing, Raheja Towers, 26/27, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001 (Karnataka) through its Chairman, Managing Director.
2. The PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lodhi Tower, M.C. No.B-19-89, Ist Floor, The Mall Road, Ludhiana-141001 through its Director./Manager/Authorized Person.
3. Punjab National Bank, Aggar Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. H.S. Sachdeva, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Sh. Sumit Jain, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on the representation of OP3, the complainant purchased policy No.22110200 in February 2017 and paid a premium of Rs.1,00,000/- to OP3. In the month of February 2018, the OPs approached the complainant for payment of premium of Rs.1,00,000/- but he showed inability for paying the premium as he was promised by OP3 that it was a single premium policy and he would get the amount equivalent to 10 times of the premium on the maturity of the policy.  This time again, the OPs assured that the complainant that he would get return of whole of the amount with interest. As such, on the assurance of the OPs, the complainant paid the second installment/premium of Rs.98,621/- vide receipt No.C7D 68198 dated 08.03.2018 to the OPs. The complainant had also purchased a policy in the name of his wife Kirandeep Kaur from the OPs  by paying premium of Rs.1,00,000/- in June 2018. In the month of February 2019, the OPs again approached the complainant for payment of premium of Rs.1,00,000/- and he further showed inability for paying the premium  and reminded of the assurance given by the OPs, but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. As a result, the complainant requested the OPs to return his entire amount of the premium with interest but since March 2019, the OPs have been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. This amounts to deficiency of service and has also caused harassment and mental tension to the complainant. A legal notice dated 01.07.2019 served through counsel Sh. Harwinder Singh Sachdeva, Advocate also failed to evoke a positive response from the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,98,621/- with interest @12% per annum along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte. Subsequently, OP3 filed an application to join the proceeding  and vide order dated 17.02.2021 OP3 was permitted to join the proceedings.

3.                The complaint has, however, been resisted by the OP1 and OP2. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and has been filed by concealing and suppressing the material facts. According to the OPs, the complainant purchased policy No.22110200 dated 28.02.2017 for a sum assured of Rs.4,59,113/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to pay a premium of Rs.99,999/- for a period of 5 years and the terms of the policy was 10 years. The complainant purchased the policy after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy. He also received the policy documents containing all the terms and conditions and benefits. The policy could be returned after a free look period of 15 days but the said option was not exercised by the complainant. The complainant did not pay the premium falling due on 28.02.2019 with the result that the policy lapsed due to non-premium of the policy and the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the OPs. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with  documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA Sh. Manoj Thakur, Senior Manager Legal of PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence. The counsel for OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA3 of Sh.Aditya, Senior Manager of OP3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that she was sold a policy by way of mis-representation that it was a single premium policy and on maturity, the complainant would get minimum 10 times value of the single premium. However, this Commission is not inclined to accept the plea that the policy was sold by way of fraud or mis-representation to the complainant as in this regard no worthwhile evidence has been led. Perusal of the policy document Ex. R1 reveals that the policy purchased by the complainant from PNB Metlife Guaranteed Income Plan is a non-linked, non-participating Endowment life insurance plan. Admittedly, the complainant paid just two premiums of Rs.1,98,621/- and, thereafter, he did not pay any of the remaining premium of Rs.1,98.621/- whereas according to the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was supposed to pay the premiums for 10 years. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has argued that since the policy had lapsed on account of non-payment of annual premiums and was also not got revived or reinstated by the complainant, as per clause 4.3.1 of the policy, no amount is payable to the complainant.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions of the counsel for the OPs.

9.                No doubt, after the first two premium, the subsequent premiums were not paid by the complainant with the result the policy lapsed. However, a perusal of the clause 4.3.1 reveals that it is mentioned therein that no benefits will be payable under the policy if the policy is not got reinstated by the policy holder in accordance with the provision stated in para no.3 of the policy. However, it is also not mentioned anywhere in the policy that the premium already paid by the complainant would be forfeited. In this context, a reference can be made to the Insurance Regularity and Development Authority (treatment of discontinued linked insurance policy) Regulation 2010 wherein as per Regulation 7, the insurance company can only charge discontinuance charges in case of lapsed policies and in case the annualized is premium above Rs.25,000/- @6% subject to maximum of Rs.6,000/- if the policy is discontinued in the first year. No doubt said regulations are applicable to the unit linked policies only whereas in the instant case the policy is not linked one and is rather a non-linked, non-participating Endowment life insurance plan. However, considering the fact that the complainant bought this policy under the impression that it was a single premium policy, the entire premium of Rs.1,98,621/- paid by the complainant cannot be allowed to be forfeited. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are made to refund the single premium after deducting 15% towards the charges or the other expenses.     

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP1 and OP2 to refund the amount of Rs.1,98,621/- after deducting 15% towards charges or other expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The complaint as against OP3 shall stand dismissed.  Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurdeep Singh Vs PNB Metlife India Insurance             CC/19/497 

Present:       Sh. H.S. Sachdeva, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, Advocate for the OP1 and OP2.

                   Sh. Sumit Jain, Advocate for OP3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP1 and OP2 to refund the amount of Rs.1,98,621/- after deducting 15% towards charges or other expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The complaint as against OP3 shall stand dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.