STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 14.08.2024 Reserved on : 04.02.2026 Date of Decision : 16.02.2026

1. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company, Regd. Office at Unit No. 701, 702 & 703, 7^th Floor, West Wing Raheja Tower, 26/27 MG Road Bangalore-560001.

2. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company, 1^st Floor, Techniplex-I, Techniplex Complex, Off Veer Savarkar Flyover Goregaon (West)

Mumbai-400062, through its Managing Director.

Both through their Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanchit Gupta, Manager Legal, PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Limited, available at Unit No. 302, Tower-3, World Mark, Maidewas Road, Sector 65, Gurugram.

…Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Alkesh Kumar S/o Sh. Joginder Kumar, resident of House No. 263, Near Kanshi Nagri, Sundar Nagar, Ferozepur City Punjab-152002 .…Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur in C.C. No. 35 of 2021.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, 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 Present:-

For the appellants : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate (Through VC)

For the respondent : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. PNB MetLife India Insurance Company and another, have filed the present Appeal through its Authorized Signatory to challenge the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Alkesh Kumar had been partly allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the wife of the Complainant Ms. Anita had purchased PNB MetLife Guaranteed Saving Plan Insurance Policy bearing No. 23031068 from the OPs and had paid the premium of Rs.60,000/-. She was provided sum assured of Rs.5,34,102/- under the policy. Date of Commencement of the risk under the Policy was w.e.f. 09.09.2019. Mode of premium under the policy was annual and premium term was 7 years, whereas the maturity date was 09.09.2034.

4. Unfortunately during the inception of the policy, Life Assured had died on 23.03.2020. The Complainant being the nominee in the policy had lodged the claim with the OPs and had submitted all the requisite documents. The OPs had appointed Investigator on his request and the said Investigator while investigating the claim had approached the Complainant and had demanded huge amount for recommending the claim. Said request of the Investigator was not obliged by the Complainant. Thereafter, the Investigator had submitted its baseless report whereas it was clear that the Life Assured had died naturally at home. The OPs relying upon the report of the Investigator, had repudiated the genuine claim of the Complainant by taking hypothetical and flimsy grounds.

5. Stating the act of the opposite parties unlawful, to be considered a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ It was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to pay the sum assured i.e. Rs.5,34,102/- along with benefits provided under the policy. It was also prayed that interest on the insured amount be paid from the date of lodging of the Complaint till its realization. Rs.1,00,000/- be demanded as compensation on account of suffering at the hands of the OPs and Rs.33,000/- be demanded as litigation expenses.

6. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had fil