IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.02.2023 Date of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 58/2023 IN THE MATTER OF MR. PREM CHAND KASHYAP, 15-A, POCKET-B, HARI NAGAR, LIG FLATS, NEW DELHI-110064.

(Through: Mr. Satya Narayan, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS

1. M/S. METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRIGADE SHESHAMAHAL, 5, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.

(Through: Mr. Ankit Bharti, Advocate)

… Respondent No. 1

2. M/S. AXIS BANK LTD., C-3/21, JANAKPURI, WEST DELHI BRANCH, NEW DELHI-110058.

(Through: Mr. Hrithik Goyal and Mr. L. R. Goyal, Advocates)

… Respondent No. 2 CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Satya Narayan, Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Ankit Bharti, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Hrithik Goyal and Mr. L. R. Goyal, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. That the complainant has filed a complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act stating therein that:

a. The complainant is a senior citizen who retired from Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi He is maintaining a priority Savings Bank Account vide account no.

207010100193065with OP No.2.

b. The Complainant has filed the present complaint against (OP-1) and their above-said business partner, Axis Bank Ltd. (OP-2), for misleading & hiding the material facts, deficiency in service and adopting Unfair Trade Practice etc, to promote their sale, thereby subjecting the innocent senior citizen complainant to financial loss, un-necessary harassment and mental torture, for none of his faults.

c. The complainant, visited OP-2 on 19.02.2007, for investing some of his retirement funds in a Fix Deposit, where he was approached and mislead by the OP, to invest in OP-1 and requested the complainant to sign the Proposal Form.

d. On 19.02.2007, the complainant signed the Proposal and issue Cheque No.133611 dated 19.02.2007 for Rs.30,000/- for the said insurance policy of OP-1, which was sourced by OP-2.

e. The OP-1 had received the Proposal form on 19.2,2007 but had taken more than 2 months in communicating the acceptance of the insurance policy. The Policy was issued w.e.f. 23.4.2007 vide their letter dated 10.5.2007, thereby proving its own deficiency in service. This, deficiency in service has caused financial loss to the complainant, for not enabling him to get a 30% Income Tax Rebate u/s- 80c of the Income Tax Act, as per rules, on the premium of Rs.30,000/-. The amount was paid by him to the OP-1 on 19.2.2007 vide cheque dated 19.2.2007, in the Financial Year 2006-2007.

f. The complainants bank account was debited and the Metiife's account was credited on 21.2.2007 with this First Premium of Insurance of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant was also medically examined and proved "Medically Fit".

g. As such, the policy should have been issued by the Insurer, within 15 days from the receipt of a proposal, dated 19.2.2007, (i.e. in the Financial Year 2006-2007 itself). But the policy was issued w.e.f. 23.04.2007 instead of from 19.2.2007 (i.e. with a delay of more than two months, in the next Financial Year 2007-2008). No interest was paid for this delay of more than 2 moriths. Moreover, had the company issued the policy within 15 days from the actual date of receipt of the proposal dated 19.02,2007, as per the above- said rules, the complainant would have availed the 30% Income Tax Rebate u/s 80c of the Income Tax Act, on the investment of Rs.30,000/- in the same Financial Year 2006- 2007 itself. But due to this delay on the part of OP-1, in the issue of the Policy, the financial year changed from 2006- 2007 to 2007-2008, and thus, due to this delay, the complainant was debarred of availing 30% rebate on the premium of Rs.30,000/-in the financial year 2006-2007, u/s 80c of the Income Tax Act. Hence the complai