State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Paras Ram Garg. vs Pnb Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 8 August, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 26/2019
Date of Presentation: 22.10.2018
Order reserved on: 21.07.2022
Date of Decision: 08.08.2022
.................................................................................................................
Shri Paras Ram Garg S/O Shri Kalu Ram, R/O Near
G.H.S.Sehli, Village Dhar, P.O. Chaurd, Tehsil Sunder
Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
.......... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd., R/O
Registered Office, Brigade Seshmahal, 5, Vani Vilas
Road, Basavgudi, Bangalore560004 through its
Managing Director & CEO, R/O Brigade Seshmahal,
5, Vani Vilas Road, Basavgudi, Bangalore-560004.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. Regional
Office 3rd Floor, Sarab Complex, A60, Khasra
No.70-79, Morning Sites, Sanjauli, Shimla-171006
through its General Manager, R/O PNB Metlife India
Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office 3rd Floor,
Sarab Complex, A-60, Khasra No.70-79, Morning
Sites, Sanjauli, Shimla-171006 (Mobile
No.09218488744/45).
3. Kushwa Devi wife of Shri Umesh Kumar Rana S/O
Shri Tej Singh, R/O Village-Badi, P.O. Badi
Gumanu, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP175001
(licence No.3101196) (and code No.99031052) Phone
No.98176-34087.
4. Umesh Kumar Rana S/O Shri Tej Singh, R/O
Village-Badi, P.O. Badi Gumanu, Tehsil Sadar,
District Mandi, H.P. Phone No.98176-34087.
.......... Respondents/Opposite parties.
....................................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms.Sunita Sharma, Member.
Hon'ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member.
Sh.Paras Ram Garg Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors.
F.A.No.26/2019
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Appellant: Ms. Kiran Kanwar Advocate.
For respondent No.1 &2: Ms.Monika, Advocate vice Mr.Vijay
Arora, Advocate.
For respondents No.3&4: Already ex-parte.
.........................................................................................................
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
O R D E R:
Instant appeal is arising from order dated 09.08.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Mandi, in consumer complaint No.228/2016, titled Shri Paras Ram Garg Versus PNB Metlife India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
2. Brief facts stated are that on allurement of the opposite party No.4, who claimed to be an agent of the opposite parties No.1 & 2, the complainant has purchased two money back insurance policies worth Rs.50,000/- each from the opposite parties. It is pleaded that the opposite party No.4 obtained signatures of the complainant on blank papers. Payment was made vide two cheques of Rs.50,000/- each. Policy documents were received in the last week of August, 2014. After going through the same, he found that the name of Smt. Kushwa Devi (OP No.3), who happens to be the wife of the opposite party No.4, has been mentioned as an agent of the insurance company and the money was invested in share 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2 Sh.Paras Ram Garg Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. F.A.No.26/2019 market by issuing some endowment policies instead of money back insurance policies. Facts were misrepresented and he was cheated of his hard earned money. Requests were made to the opposite parties to refund the deposited amount and cancel the policies sold to him fraudulently, but in vain.
3. The complaint has been opposed by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 by filing a joint reply. The complainant voluntarily applied for the policies and purchased the same for the purpose of investment. He did not get the policies cancelled within free look period of 15 days after receiving the policy documents. Proposal forms dated 11.06.2014 were filled and signed by the complainant after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product. Policies were issued on the basis of proposal forms. The complainant paid only one premium installment of both the policies. He did not pay the subsequent renewal premium because of which, the policies lapsed. Proposal forms on the basis of which, the policies were issued, were voluntarily signed by the complainant. The policies cannot be cancelled at such a belated stage. The complainant is not entitled to the money claimed.
4 No rejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint.
3
Sh.Paras Ram Garg Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. F.A.No.26/2019
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and and have also gone through the record carefully.
8. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that the appellant/complainant has taken two Insurance policies and paid premium of Rs.50,000/- each. She further submitted that the complainant/appellant was misrepresented by the Insurance company and when the complainant came to know about the real facts, he asked for the refund of his money, but the opposite parties refused to refund the same. Learned counsel of the appellant has further submitted that appeal of the appellant be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondents No.1 and 2 has submitted that the it is admitted fact emerging on record that policies were taken. Had there been any mis-happening in between, the respondents would have been liable for the same. She further submitted that impugned order does not require any interference and prayed that appeal of the appellant be dismissed. FINDINGS:
10. The admitted facts which emerges on record are that two insurance policies were issued in the name of the complainant and the complainant has paid premium of Rs.50,000/- towards each policy. The opposite 4 Sh.Paras Ram Garg Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. F.A.No.26/2019 parties/respondents also did not dispute the receipt of premium amounts.
11. The complainant in his complaint has specifically pleaded that the policy bonds were received by him in the last week of August, 2014. It is also proved on record that the complainant did not get the insurance policies cancelled within the free look period of 15 days after receiving the policy documents, if he was not satisfied with the benefits of the policies or terms and conditions thereof. Since the complainant has not exercised his option to cancel the policies within the free look period after receiving the policy documents, he is bound by the terms and conditions of insurance policies.
12. As far as the allegation of the complainant that he was misrepresented or allured by the agent of the opposite parties is concerned, same cannot be believed, because the insurance policies were issued on the basis of proposal forms, which are duly signed by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant is an educated person and has retired from the Education Department. It cannot be said that an educated person like the complainant can be allured or mis-represented and that too for signing blank documents. The complainant has also provided his photograph and the photo of his wife Smt. Shakuntala for being pasted on the proposal forms.
13. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, it could be safely inferred that the insurance policies in 5 Sh.Paras Ram Garg Vs. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. F.A.No.26/2019 question were purchased by the complainant of his own will and accord. Now, the complainant is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of the insurance policies, which were issued to him after filling the proposal forms and said proposal forms are duly signed by him.
14. Thus, in view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned District Forum, as the same is detailed and well reasoned. Consequently, appeal of the appellant fails and impugned order dated 09.08.2018 passed by learned District Forum, Mandi, remains upheld.
15. No order as to costs.
16 A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties and their counsel free of cost, as per Rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Commission and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K.Verma Member 08.08.2022 Manoj 6