State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Naresh vs Pnb Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 24 March, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.87 of 2021
Date of institution : 24.03.2021
Reserved on : 28.02.2022
Date of decision : 24.03.2022
Mr. Ram Naresh S/o Sh. Girvar Parshad, aged about 70 years, R/o
H.No.48, Badri Dass Colony, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Floor, F-26/7, Sector-7,
Rohini, Delhi-110085, through its Authorized Official.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No.T.F.-3, Third Floor,
Eminent Mall 261, Mahavir Marg, Near Guru Nanak Mission
Chowk, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab-144006, through its
authorized official.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the order dated 19.01.2021
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the appellants : Sh. A.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate .................................................................................. First Appeal No.87 of 2021 2 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The appellant/complainant-Ram Naresh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short "Act") to challenge the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (in short the "District Commission") in Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2019, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant has been disposed with following directions:-
"7. However, after considering the overall facts, we came to conclusion that direction is given to the complainant to submit the documents which were demanded by the OPs as per letter Ex.C-10 and then OPs will change the father name of the complainant, as Girvar Parshad instead of Manshwar on the Policy and as such he can revive his policies by paying due premiums, the complaint of the complainant is disposed off. This complaint could not decide within stipulated time frame due to rush of work."
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the appellant/complainant in the complaint are that he being the illiterate person was not aware about the life Insurance Policy and was approached by the agent of OPs to have one life insurance policy to safeguard the future interest in the year 2012 at Jalandhar. It has further been mentioned in the complaint that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank proformas, which were typed in First Appeal No.87 of 2021 3 English. It was done on the assurance given by the agent of OPs. It has further been mentioned that total six policies were issued instead of one policy by bearing different numbers. The amount paid was adjusted in total six policies by way of misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that even the father's name of the complainant was wrongly mentioned as Manshwar instead of Girvar Parshad. Thereafter the complainant came to know that his father's name was wrongly mentioned in all the policies. The mistake so committed was in the notice of the OPs but the same was not corrected. The complainant also mentioned that his hard earned money was blocked by the OPs and by seeing the action and inaction on their part, he decided not to pay the future premiums and opted to withdraw all the policies. It is also the grievance of the complainant that inspite of making a number of requests and on completion of all formalities no satisfactory reply was given, which was an act of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs. The complainant prayed for refund of the amounts alongwith interest @18% per annum, compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs and thereafter vide order dated 19.01.2021, the District Commission disposed of the complaint by issuing directions to the complainant, as referred above.
4. The appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 has approached this Commission by way of appeal to challenged the impugned order passed by the District Commission on the ground that instead of allowing the complaint by issuing the directions to the OPs to refund the amount of First Appeal No.87 of 2021 4 Rs.57,924.49 alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of payment till realization alongwith compensation damages and litigation expenses, the District Commission has issued the direction to the complainant to revive the policies after submitting documents.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the complainant being illiterate person was not having the knowledge of technicalities of law and at the instance of OPs six policies were issued, whereas he was interested only in one policy. Learned counsel further submits that the proposal form was filled up by the agent of the OPs and had wrongly mentioned the name of his father as Manshwar instead of Girvar Parshad. Even the date of birth of the appellant/complainant was wrongly mentioned as 01.07.1963 instead of 01.07.1947 in all the policies, as filled up by the agent. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OPs and was not interested in continuation of the policies, as even the name of his father was not corrected. He further submits that the complainant was not happy with the action/inaction of the OPs, as the small issue of correction in the name of father was not redressed and he requested for withdrawal/refund of the amount whatever he paid. Learned counsel also submits that there was no occasion for the appellant to supply the documents, as those documents were already supplied. By seeing the inaction and intention of the OPs, he did not pay the amount towards premiums. At the end learned counsel submits that while passing the impugned order, the District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts of the complaint and prayer clause mentioned therein and also First Appeal No.87 of 2021 5 the action/inaction on the part of the OPs. Even it has not been taken into consideration that no prayer was made to the District Commission for revival of the policies and still directions have been issued to revive the policies by paying due premiums, which is patently wrongly.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He further submits that the complaint filed by the complainant was hopelessly time barred, as the policies were obtained by the complainant in the month of October, 2012, whereas the complaint was filed on 13.03.2019 i.e. after a delay of more than six years. The cause of action arose to the complainant in the month of October 2012 and the complainant lodged the first complaint on 14.12.2017 which was after 5 years. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the appeal. In case the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have opted for cancellation of the policy within free look period of 15 days, as per Regulation 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002. Meaning thereby the appellant/complainant accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. It was clearly mentioned on the first page of the policy documents, which is at page 33 of the paper book that in case of any discrepancy/disagreement, the policy documents could have been returned. The free look period clause was also mentioned in the policy. Those documents have been placed on record by the complainant himself before the District Commission as well as before this First Appeal No.87 of 2021 6 Commission. The appellant/complainant received the policy document and was well aware about the terms and conditions governing the policy, but did not opt for cancellation after receipt of the policy. Meaning thereby he accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/complainant has concealed and suppressed certain material and relevant facts of the case. The complaint was filed with malafide and dishonest intention. It has wrongly been mentioned in the complaint that he is an illiterate person, whereas he has placed on record the proposal form and his education qualification has been mentioned as 12th pass and nature of business has been reflected as government job and designation has been mentioned as 'SDO'. Learned counsel further submits that it is a clear cut case of misuse of the provisions of the Act and in view of judgments of various courts, a person is supposed to approach the Court with clean hands. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that issuance of six policies is falsified from the fact that the appellant/complainant opted to purchase six policies in the month of October 2012 and out of said policies, he deposited the renewal premium of two policies i.e. 20935118 and 20936289 as mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint at page 27. The policies are at serial No.1 and 5 and the renewal premium is mentioned at serial No.7 and 8. He further submits that had the complainant opted single premium policy, there was no occasion for him to deposit the renewal premium after a period of one year. The complainant failed to deposit three premiums and no such amount is payable. At the end, learned counsel submits that there no case is made out of 'deficiency in First Appeal No.87 of 2021 7 service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs as neither he approached the OPs for cancellation/refund of the premiums within free look period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents nor paid the regular premium on the date due. Learned counsel has relied upon following judgments in support of his contentions:-
"V.N. Shrikhandevas Vs. Anita Sena Fernandes"
2011(1)CLT-262
"Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Versus National Insurance Co. & others" 2009(3)CPJ-75 "State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural Industries" (1) 2009 RCR(Civil)628 "Norbert Shaba Rego Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & another" 2018(4) CPJ-316 "Devraj Kishore Dass Vs. Reliance Life Insurace"
2018(3)CPJ-518 "Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd." 2012(4) CPJ-690 "Tarsem Singh Vs. PNB Metlife" 2016(3) CPR-757 "Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shelly Sharma"
2014(1) C.P.R.-593 "Shashi Khanna Vs. Reliance Life" Appeal No.179 of 2013, decided on 03.05.2012 (U.T. Chandigarh State Commission) "Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pardeep Garg" Appeal No.1139 of 2012, decided on 10.01.2014 (Punjab State Commission) "V. Chandrasekaran & another Vs. The Administrative Officer & others" 2013(1) CCC-75 "Reliance Life Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod" Civil Appeal No.4261 of 2019 arising out of SLP © No.14312 of 2015, decided on 24.04.2019 (SC) "Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Aggarwal Steel" 2009(4) CCC-598 (SC) "Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jasmail Singh" Appeal No.880/2014, decided on 02.02.2016 (Punjab State Commission) First Appeal No.87 of 2021 8 "Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines" 2000 (1) SCC-66 "Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. M/s Garg Sons International" 2013 (1)CPC-192 "Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. and another Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." 2009(4) CLT-313 "Deokar Exports Private Limited Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd." 2009(2) CLT-15 "LIC of India and others Vs. Mahendra Singh" 2011(4)CLT-39
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and we have also carefully perused the evidence available on the file as well as written arguments submitted by the parties.
8. Facts of the case regarding issuance of the policy, depositing of amount of premiums, mentioning of wrong name of father of the complainant and wrong date of birth are not disputed. Even the request made by the appellant/complainant for change of name of his father and correction of date of birth is not disputed. It is also admitted that OPs were ex-parte before the District Commission. Neither the ex- parte order nor the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 was challenged.
9. The District Commission directed the complainant to submit all the documents, which were demanded by the OPs, vide letter Ex.C-10 for change of name of his father. As per argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant all the documents were already supplied to the OPs. The OPs demanded the copy of driving license/PAN card/License/Passport for redressal of his grievance regarding said policies vide letter dated 15.11.2017 (Ex.C-10).
10. The issue for consideration by this Commission is as to whether the complainant had supplied the said document at the time of First Appeal No.87 of 2021 9 filling up the proposal forms or not. We have carefully scanned the documents i.e. proposal forms Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. It is apparent that the complainant had already supplied the copy of PAN card for the purposes of age proof and identity proof. These documents were neither challenged by the respondents/OPs before the District Commission nor before this Commission. The OPs demanded the same document vide letter Ex.C-10, which had already been supplied by the complainant to them as proof of age and identity, as is clear from the proposal forms submitted by the complainant before the District Commission in evidence. It is also relevant to mention here that the agent of the OPs never explained the risk, terms and conditions to the complainant, as no signatures of the complainant under 'Risk Profile' of all the proposal forms Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. The District Commission has failed to consider this important aspect of the case while passing the impugned order. As such, the findings recorded by the District Commission are wrong and incorrect and the same are liable to be set aside.
11. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that instead of giving one policy, the OPs issued six policies to the complainant, wherein the name of his father was wrongly mentioned as 'Manshwar' instead of 'Girvar Parshad' and it was not corrected. Even the date of birth in all the policies was not corrected inspite of requests made by him. The complainant decided not to pay the future premiums.
12. We find force in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant/complainant, as no reply to the complaint was filed by the First Appeal No.87 of 2021 10 OPs before the District Commission. Even the OPs failed to appear before this Commission, despite their service and, as such, they were proceeded against ex parte. Thus, all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by them and the evidence led by the complainant also remained unrebutted before the District Commission. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complaint filed by the complainant was within the period of limitation, as the OPs demanded certain documents vide letter dated 15.11.2017, which were already in their possession, as discussed above and did not refund the amount vide letter dated 31.03.2018. The complaint filed on 13.03.2019 was within the period of limitation of two years, as per provisions of the Act. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents/OPs are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. In view of above discussion, it has been proved on record that the appellant/complainant was compelled to file the complaint before the District Commission and thereafter the appeal before this Commission. The District Commission has gone beyond the averments made in the complaint, as there was no prayer or averment in the complaint that his policies be revived. A specific and simple prayer before the District Commission was that amount so deposited be refunded alongwith interest @18% plus compensation as well as litigation expenses. The District Commission has not taken into consideration the averments made in the complaint and prayer made therein. It appears that the appellant/complainant was unnecessary been harassed by asking him to supply the documents which were First Appeal No.87 of 2021 11 already in their possession. A poor person who has limited source of income has invested the amount of savings by curtailing his expenses. The purpose of having insurance policy was to save the amount to meet out the unforeseen eventualities, if any, in the future. Due to action and inaction on the part of the respondents/OPs, the appellant/complainant has been dragged into the litigation and had to incur expenses by engaging lawyer not only before the District Commission but before this Commission also, which has caused financial loss but mental harassment and agony as well. Accordingly, it can be said that the action/inaction on the part of the respondents/OPs not only amounts to 'deficiency in service' but 'unfair trade practice' as well and the complainant is held entitled to refund of amount alongwith reasonable rate of interest by delaying the refund and compensation as well as litigation expenses.
14. By considering the facts and reasons as mentioned above, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order of the District Commission is set aside. The respondents/OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.57,924.49 paise alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of its deposit till actual realization. The respondents/OPs are also directed to pay compensation for causing mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
15. The compliance of the order be made by the respondents/OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to receive interest @18% per annum on the amount of refund First Appeal No.87 of 2021 12 instead of 9% per annum.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and non-sitting of this Commission due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)
PRESIDENT
(URVASHI AGNIHOTRI)
March 24, 2022 MEMBER
MM