Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the Complainant is a citizen of India by birth having the permanent resident of the above noted address which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Complainant is a reputed businessman and in the year 2018, he was in need of some urgent money to run his business and to meet the said need, he approached to the O.P. No.-1 in order to take a loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh only). The O.P. No.-1 after verifying all the relevant documents of the Complainant, agreed to disburse such loan subject to the condition of mortgage of some land and one security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) which will be kept in the custody of the O.P. NO.-1 and which will be adjusted/refunded to the Complainant with the interest later on. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant after consultation with his wife, supplied two deeds of transfer bearing No. 2965 dt. 22.05.2012 & 6291 dated 30.11.2019 for the purpose of mortgage in favour of the O.P. No.1 against such loan and for the purpose of security deposit, the O.P. No.1 demanded one blank cheque with signature as they asked the Complainant that they would know where to invest the money for security purposes and as per the demand of the O.P. No.1 the Complainant supplied the same in favour of the O.P. No.1 and at the later stage, the Complainant noticed that the amount of Rs. 3,13,500.02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) has been deducted from the account of the Complainant. The Complainant and his wife were asked to sign on some documents before issuing such loan and the Complainant and his wife signed the same;  during signing on those documents before issuing such loan when the Complainant asked the O.P. No.-1 as to why the same was being signed and the O.P. No.1 & the O.P. No.2, who usually sits in the office of the O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant that it is one time investment policy like fixed deposit and is far better than any other security deposit to secure any loan which will be refunded as and when the Complainant will demand the same. On 02.07.2021, the Complainant approached to the O.P. NO.1 and asked him to adjust the amount of Rs. 3,13,500,02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) with his loan account whichthe Complainant paid as refundable security deposit against such loan but astonishingly the O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant that the said money will not be refunded as they have invested the money of the Complainant in their another product of P.N.B. Met Life where without payment of the least three premium, the same is non-refundable; The Complainant submits that the O.P. No.1 in connivance with the O.P. NO.2 & 3 invested Rs. 3,13,500.02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) of the Complainant in the product of P.N.B. Met Life by practicing fraud and misrepresentation upon the Complainant; When the Complainant asked the O.P. No.-1 that he will inform the said matter of unfair trade practice to the head office, the O.P. NO.-1 & 3 asked the Complainant not to file any complaint in their head office and they assured the Complainant that they are taking steps to refund the said amount in favour of the Complainant; as a result, as per the instruction of the O.P. NO.-1 , the O.P. wrote a letter in his own hand for & on behalf of the Complainant to the Manager, P.N.B. Met Life, Kharagpur to return the said amount and asked the Complainant to wait for some period. Apart from that the Complainant made several complaints to the Opposite Parties and several communications including telephonic conversation have been held on behalf of the Complainant whereas the opposite parties, admitting the fact of fraud & misrepresentation while issuing the product, assured the Complainant to return back the amount of said policy of P.N.B. Met Life in favour of the Complainant but till now they have not taken any step towards the refund of the said amount. The Complainant further submits that when he was in need of money and approached to the O.P. No.-1 for loan, it was impossible & absurd to purchase such a costly insurance premium. The opposite parties knew very well that if at any way, they can sell such an expensive product by misrepresentation to any person like complainant who will not be able to pay such huge premium per year, then they will be able to grasp the hard earned money of such person and their manner of income is like this. The Complainant states that the opposite parties in connivance with each other are running unfair trade practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the complainant wherein the opposite parties have intentionally provided the de novo dreadful and deceitful service to the complainant and has not provided the proper and facilitated services towards him which has caused his unnecessary mental agony and stress. Moreover, it is also unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No-1 to allow any officer/agent of insurance company to sit and sell the product of the insurance where common people arebeingmisguided.The cause of action of the complaint firstly arose on 20.02.2018 when the opposite parties sold the product of PNB Metlife in favour of the complainant by practicing fraud & misrepresentation and then on 02.07.2021, when the complainant came to know that his money will not be refunded and from day to day till the refund of the said amount and so, this case is well within the prescribed period in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; The complaint is made bonafide and for the ends of justice. There is no other suit/case pending nor has been decided on the same subject matter between the parties by any competent court of law. The complainant has for directing the Opposite Parties to 1)refund Rs.3,13,500.02 (Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) with banking interest & compensation jointly or severally in favour of the Complainant 2) to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) only to the Complainant for mental pain, agony, physical suffering of the complainant and for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, 3) to pay the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only in favour of the Complainant and 4) for such other reliefs as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

Notices were served upon all the ops- 1 ,2& 3 ,however only op-1 has contested the case by filing written version. The proceeding of the case runs exparte against ops- 2 & 3.

The averments of the written version of the op-1 are, inter alia, that the statements of the complaint which are not specifically denied shall not be deemed to be admission of this Opposite Party. The prayers of the Complainant as stated are false, frivolous, baseless, and illegal and as such the complainant is not entitled to have the relief as prayed for. Complainant Sudhir Ranjan Roy and his wife Mina Roy jointly taken one overdraft loan against property amounting to Rs. 18 lakhs on 21.03.2018 by mortgaging their property from Op No.1 The loan account was closed by One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. The complainant has approached to the OP No.2 through agent for the purchase of the life insurance policy and has submitted the declaration for submission of E-proposal form/Application bearing No. 216341037 dated 19.01.2018 along with the initial premium amount forthe issuance of the policy. After receiving of the signed proposal form from the complainant, Op No.2 has accepted his proposal. In said proposal he has declared that he had duly provided true correct details in the proposal form after understanding the contents of the same he has signed the same and believing on details given by the Complainant, the Op No.2 has issued the policy to him. On the basis of the information furnished in the proposal form, the proposal was processed by the Op no.2 and thereafter the said policy was issued to the policy holder. The OP No.2 had sent the policy documents to the complainant. As OP No.2 did not receive any query from complainant regarding the present policy within the free look period, thus the policy had been confirmed by the Opposite Party No. 2 after the lapse of the free look period. Presently the policy of the policy holder stands lapsed as after paying the initial premium in the year 2018 and thereafter no further premium had been paid by the complainant. The Opposite Party states that Opposite Party never demanded any blank cheque with signature from complainant for any security deposit/investment or opposite party never asked to sign on some documents before issuing such loan to complainant and his wife or opposite party never told complainant that PNB met life insurance policy is one time I vestment policy fixed deposit and is far better than any other security deposit to secure any loan which will be refunded as and when the Complainant will demand the same. Complainant for the purpose of this case stated those false and baseless statements in his complaint. The Opposite Party-1 states that it is a dispute between complainant and Opposite Party No.2 This Opposite Party has no relation/involvement about the said insurance policy. As the Opposite Party No.2 PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. Repudiated the claim of complainant as per rules and regulation so the act, the complainant cannot claim compensation by instituting the case against this Opposite Party and as such this case is not maintainable. The Opposite Party state that opposite Party is neither on deficiency of service nor liable for unfair trade practice in the present case so, complainant is not entitled to get any relief against this Opposite Party as prayed for. This Opposite Parties states that the Complainant has no cause of action to institute the instant case against this Opposite Party. The Claim of complainant in this case is totally false, frivolous, baseless, incorrect, and unwarranted in law and as such the Complainant is not entitled to have the relief as prayed for. Only to harass this Opposite Party complainant has filed the instant case with false pretext. Hence , the op-1 has submitted that the case is liable to be dismissed.

Points for determination are:

 1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?      

2.   Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the complaint on affidavit, written versions evidence of the complainant and op-1and WNA filed by op-1 and the documents on record.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the of Ld. Advocates for the complainant and the op-1.

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that complainant is a consumer having grievances against the OPs, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On careful analysis and evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it appears thatthe Complainant has deposed that he noticed that the amount of Rs. 3,13,500.02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) has been deducted from the account of the Complainant. The Complainant and his wife were asked to sign on some documents before issuing such loan and the Complainant and his wife signed the same;  during signing on those documents before issuing such loan when the Complainant asked the O.P. No.-1 as to why the same was being signed and the O.P. No.1 & the O.P. No.2, who usually sits in the office of the O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant that it is one time investment policy like fixed deposit and is far better than any other security deposit to secure any loan which will be refunded as and when the Complainant will demand the same. On 02.07.2021, the Complainant approached to the O.P. NO.1 and asked him to adjust the amount of Rs. 3,13,500,02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) with his loan account which  the Complainant paid as refundable security deposit against such loan but astonishingly the O.P. No.1 informed the Complainant that the said money will not be refunded as they have invested the money of the Complainant in their another product of P.N.B. Met Life where without payment of the least three premium, the same is non-refundable; The Complainant submits that the O.P. No.1 in connivance with the O.P. NO.2 & 3 invested Rs. 3,13,500.02(Rupees Three Lack thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Two paisa) of the Complainant in the product of P.N.B. Met Life by practicing fraud and misrepresentation upon the Complainant; When the Complainant asked the O.P. No.-1 that he will inform the said matter of unfair trade practice to the head office, the O.P. NO.-1 & 3 asked the Complainant not to file any complaint in their head office and they assured the Complainant that they are taking steps to refund the said amount in favour of the Complainant; as a result, as per the instruction of the O.P. NO.-1 , the O.P. wrote a letter in his own hand for & on behalf of the Complainant to the Manager, P.N.B. Met Life, Kharagpur to return the said amount and asked the Complainant to wait for some period. Apart from that the Complainant made several complaints to the Opposite Parties and several communications including telephonic conversation have been held on behalf of the Complainant whereas the opposite parties, admitting the fact of fraud & misrepresentation while issuing the product, assured the Complainant to return back the amount of said policy of P.N.B. Met Life in favour of the Complainant but till now they have not taken any step towards the refund of the said amount. The Complainant further submits that when he was in need of money and approached to the O.P. No.-1 for loan, it was impossible & absurd to purchase such a costly insurance premium.

On the other hand, it the main defense of op-1 that the Opposite Party-1  that it is a dispute between complainant and Opposite Party No.2 This Opposite Party has no relation/involvement about the said insurance policy. As the Opposite Party No.2 PNB Metlife Insurance Company Ltd. Repudiated the claim of complainant as per rules and regulation so the act, the complainant cannot claim compensation by instituting the case against this Opposite Party-1.

Now , we find that if the policy holderfails to pay thepremium policy will lapse and the policy holderwill lose all the benefits and coverage provided by the policy. In such a case Insurance Company will send a notice of the lapse to the policy holder. In the instant case complainant has claimed any benefit or coverage. The op-2 has not given any notice to the insured intimating the lapse of premium or cancel of contract. Op-2 has not turned up to establish or set up any defence against the claim of the complainant ; rather the op-1 has tried to state or assign some reasons on behalf of op-2 which is allowed to run their business from the same premises,as stated by complainant or for the reason best known to it. Had the op-2 given any such notice the complainant would not be in a position to raise an issue of misguidance against the op-2. Here, the term refers to a ‘Lapse’ in coverage meaning thereby the insurance contract will no longer pay a death benefit or provide any insurance coverage of the insured. It appears that the complainant is in possession of the Policy certificate since long or from the date of delivering it to him; the complainant had all the scope to read the contents of the policy certificate. As his allegations regarding misrepresentation of facts in the matter of loan and policy premium have got no leg to stand. However, the op-2 had left the evidence of complainant to remain unchallenged; it did a mistake by not informing the complainant regarding lapse of premium by issuing any notice. In absence of such notice, the op-2 committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim for refund of the premium paid only after deducting the service charges.Therefore, in view of our above observation we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,00,000/- ,the premium paid (after deduction of charges ) alongwith  simple interest @ 6% per annum over the said  amount from the date of filing of this case till full realization in the nature of compensation and Rs.2000/-as towards litigation costs from op-2. The complainant is not entitled get any relief from op-1& 3, as it has failed to any cogent nexusof op-1 & 3 with op-2.

Both the points are disposed of accordingly.

        Thus, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/16 of 2022 be and the same is allowed exparte against op-2 and dismissed on contest against ops-1& 3.

The op-2 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-( three lakh only), the amount of premium paid alongwith  simple interest @ 6% per annum over the said  amount from the date of filing of this case till full realization in the nature of compensation and Rs.2000/-as towards litigation costs within 30 days from the date of this order.

In default, the complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution as par law.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant and  op-1  free of cost , and urgent certified copy if op-2 applies for as per rule.