Rewari District Commission Holds PNB MetLife Insurance Co. Liable For Misrepresenting Term Of Policy And Misspelling Nominee's Name

Brief Facts:

The representative of PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd. (“Insurance Company”) induced Anil Kumar Shrivastava (“Complainant”) to purchase two life insurance policies, namely PNB Met Life Guarantee Saving Plan, both having a term of five years. He was assured by the representative that he needed to deposit Rs. 1 lakh per year for five years and would subsequently be entitled to receive Rs. 6.25 lac to 7 lacs approximately. However, upon receiving the policies, the Complainant discovered that the policies had terms of 10 years and 15 years. Additionally, a discrepancy was noted in one policy where his nominee was incorrectly listed as Jyoti Yadav instead of his wife, Jyoti Shrivastava. Despite reaching out to the Insurance Company and Punjab National Bank, no resolution was provided. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against PNB and the Insurance Company.

The Insurance Company asserted that the complaint was false and frivolous. In its reply, it provided a table detailing the policies' specifics and argued that the Complainant was guided by a consultant at the time of policy issuance. It maintained that the policy terms were explained, and documents were sent to the Complainant's stated communication address. The reply further contended that the Complainant did not exercise the free lock (cancellation period without surrender charges) provisions within the stipulated 15-day period to cancel the policies. Additionally, it asserted that both policies lapsed due to non-payment of premiums, with the Complainant depositing only two-yearly premiums of Rs. 99,999/- and one premium amount of Rs. 59,999/-. It argued that the Complainant's violation of the terms and conditions rendered the complaint not maintainable.

PNB didn't appear before the District Commission. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that it was a clear instance of mis-selling of insurance policies by the Insurance Company. It underscored the Complainant's financial strain in depositing premiums for extended policy periods and emphasized the lack of redressal despite the Complainant's multiple attempts to escalate the issue through letters.

The District Commission held that the Complainant was a victim of unfair trade practices and misrepresentation by the representative. The District Commission held that the Insurance Company had no right to lapse the policies, dismissing the notion that the Complainant forfeited policy amounts due to non-payment. Therefore, the District Commission held the Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the Insurance Company to refund the premiums of Rs. 2,59,997/- to the Complainant along with interest. The Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Shrivastava vs Punjab National Bank and Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order