Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/84/2016

Sh. Tarsem Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Gaur

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/84/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	04/02/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	18/07/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Tarsem Lal, R/o H.No.1483, Sec. 23-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

[1]  The Manager, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 2463-64, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  Sh. Ashok Kumar, C/o PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, SCO 2463-64, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

[3]  Sh. N.K. Rai, House No.1155, Ground Floor, Sector 46-B, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

[4]  Chief Operating Officer, PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, formerly known as Metlife India Insurance Co. Limited, Regd. Office: Brigade Seshamahal, No.5, Vani Vilas Road Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560004.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 & 4	:	Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For OP NO.3	:	Struck off.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, on 19.03.2014, enticed by the rosy pictures projected by the representatives of the Opposite Parties to get good returns, the Complainant purchased a policy for his son/grandson, with a term period of 05 years with lock-in-period of 03 years and he was also to receive a gift of 1 gm gold coin and a wrist watch. It has been alleged that on 25.03.2014, on receipt of the policy document, the Complainant found certain short comings/ discrepancies, including that the term of the policy was 15 years instead of 05 years as agreed upon by him. The Complainant accordingly tried to contact the Opposite Parties to settle the aforesaid issues, but to no success. Finding no easy way to settle the issues, the Complainant sent a mail to the OP-Company on 02.07.2014, listing therein the core concerns, in response to which he was asked to send a signed Complaint, which he did on 15.07.2014, but to no avail. Frustrating over the working of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant sent a letter dated 18.2.2015 to the Chief Operating Officer of the OP-Company for cancellation of the Policy. In response whereof, the OP-Company vide letter dated 25.5.2015 rejected the request of the Complainant to cancel the policy. Eventually, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.07.2015 to the Opposite Parties, which they ignored. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.03.2017.

 

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that they for the first time received a written Complaint from the Complainant dated 18.02.2015, wherein the Complainant requested for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. The answering Opposite Parties duly looked into the matter and vide e-mail dated 25.05.2015 informed the Complainant that since the cancellation request was beyond the free look period of 15 days, the said request of the Complainant cannot be entertained and hence neither the Policy could be cancelled nor the premium could be refunded. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 and 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

4.     In view of the endorsement made by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the Complaint itself, giving up Opposite Party No.3, the name of Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be struck out from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 21.03.2016.

 

5.     Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for contesting Parties and also perused the record, along with the written arguments, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8.     On perusal of the Annexure OP-1, we find that the proposal form was duly signed by the Complainant himself and thereafter, the Policy in question was issued to him. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is a proof of undue influence, coercion or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. There is no dispute about the fact that the policy was admittedly received by the complainant on 25.03.2014 (Annex.C-2). But after the receipt of the policy, the complainant did not approach the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the policy, within the free look period, meaning thereby he accepted the policy document with its terms and conditions. There is no document on record for request of cancellation of policy within free look period. Rather, it has come on record that for the first time, vide letter dated 18.02.2015 (Annexure OP-2), the Complainant requested for the cancellation of the Policy and refund of the premium amount. Since the Complainant had the option to return/ surrender the Policy within a period of 15 days, but he had not exercised the said option, therefore, he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Policy. As the complainant retained the policy documents without raising any objection, within free look period, therefore, the complaint does not have any merit.

 

9.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

18^th July, 2017                                  Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                            Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER