Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Suvashis Roy
For OP/OPs : Rajdev Singh and Anindyo Mukhopadhayay
Date of filing of the case :28.10.2015
Date of Disposal of the case :30/11/2022
Final Order / Judgment dtd.
Complainant above named filed this complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986 against the aforesaid OPs alleging deficiency in service and prayed for decree amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- and other relief.
His main allegation as I find from the petition of complainant that he is the policy holder of METLIFE India Insurance Co. vide Policy no.2023830 Branch Code no.237 acknowledge no. 23720120124/0001 dtd. 24.11.2012 and collective bank is the Axis Bank Limited Krishnagar Branch, Nadia W.B.
Coverage value of the said policy was Rs.2,50,000/- with installment premium of Rs.50,000/- per annum Out of which complainant paid 3 installment amounting of Rs.1,50,000/-.
Subsequently complainant surrendered the original policy before the collecting Bank i.e Axis Bank Limited Krishnagar Branch (i.e OP no. 3) with a prayer to refund the amount which he was entitled but OP no. 1 to 3 not yet paid the surrendered value. Even they did not give any reply relating to notice of the complainant which was sent to them through his ld. Advocate.
OP no 1 and 2 in their W/V denied the entire aallegation which have been leveled against them.
OP No. 3 in his W/V denied the entire allegation and also stated that there is no deficiency in service in his part. Even there is no negligence in his part.
He admitted in his W/V that he is the agent of the aforesaid policy and he after receipt of the request of the complainant regarding cancellation of Policy on 04.04.2012 forwarded to the same to the insurance company i.e OP no.1 and 2.
Hence, this trial.
During trial following evidence have recorded:-
- Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief of himself (P.W.1)
- OP No. 1 and 2 filed affidavit-in-chief of Motty John General Manager cum legal and duly constituted attorney PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Limited.
- OP No. 3 did not adduce any affidavit-in-chief.
Complainant in support of his case produced the following documents viz.
- AD card relating to service of notice upon OP no. 3 which was sent to him through registered post by complainant namely Subankar Bhattacharya.
- Postal receipt relating to sending of notice upon the OP no. 3.
- Copy of notice which was sent to OP no. 3 by registered post.
- Copy of Metlife Insurance Policy.
Brief Notes of arguments
Both the parties filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
On careful perusal of record we find that it is admitted fact that complainant purchased one policy from OP no. 1 and 2 through their local agent i.e OP no. 3.
On perusal of the copy of policy we find that date of commencement of the policy is 23.01.2010 and date of maturity is 23.01.2030.
Amount of coverage is Rs.2,50,000/- installment premium is Rs. 50,000/- and frequency of payment is annual .
I find from the evidence of complainant that he paid 3 yearly installment i.e Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter on 04.04.2012 he surrendered the said policy before the OP no. 3 who subsequently forwarded the same to OP no. 1 and 2.
But OP no. 1 and 2 not yet paid the surrendered value of the said policy in favour of complainant. We have carefully gone through the W/V and evidence of the OP no. 1 and 2 but we find that OP no. 1 an 2 could not show any cogent reason on whose basis they avoided the payment.
It cannot be said that policy holder will not get any amount if he surrenders the policy after 2 years from the date of purchase.
Complainant also stated in his complaint that he also purchased other two policies from the OPs and those two policies were surrendered in the middle way and he got the surrendered value of the policy. So, in this case there is no justification to deprive the complainant.
Having considered the fact and circumstance of the case, pleading of the parties, evidence of the parties and BNA of the parties we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to the surrendered value of the aforesaid policy and OP no. 1 to 3 are bound to pay the same at and early date in favour of the complainant .
Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-Plus upto date interest as per the said scheme .
Beside the aforesaid amount complainant is further entitled to Rs.30,000/- as compensation for his harassment, mental pain and agony.
Complainant is also entitled to Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the suit.
In the result complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the present case Vide No. CC/134/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1-3 with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees. Ten Thousand only) to be paid by the OP No. 1-3 in favour of the complainant within a month from this date.
OP No. 1-3 are directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees. One Lakh fifty Thousand only) along with interest till the date of payment which is applicable in the said scheme.
OP No.1- 3 are further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his harassment, mental pain and agony.
OP no. 1 to 3 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount in favoue of the complainant within a month from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this Final Order be supplied to the complainant and OP no.1-3 as free of cost.
