M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.642 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 23.06.2022 passed in Case.No.530/2020 by District Commission, Gwalior)

GURPREET SINGH GROVER, R/O J-42, GANDHI NAGAR, GWALIOR … APPELLANT.

Versus .

1. PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, 101 IST FLOOR, TECHNICAL COMPLEX, VEER SAWARKAR FLYOVER, S.B.ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI.

2. PNB METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER, 701, 702, 703, 7^TH FLOOR, WEST WING, RAHEGA TOWER – 26/27, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

3. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE – PLOT NO.45, SECTOR NO.10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI.

4. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, THROUGH AGENT – SARVESH SHARMA, BRANCH NAYA BAZAR LASHKAR, GWALIOR.

5. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, THROUGH MANAGER, BRANCH THATIPUR, GWALIOR. .… RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Ms. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Shubhank Dixit, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2.

Shri Mayur Mandhanya, learned counsel for respondents no.3 & 5.

None present for respondent no.4.

O R D E R (Passed on .03.2026)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the complainant / appellant directed against the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no. 530/2020, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant / appellant had obtained insurance policy bearing no.22188976 under the Met Life Guaranteed Income Plan from opposite parties no.1 and 2–PNB MetLife Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) on 13.04.2017, which was received by him on 20.05.2017. Upon receiving the policy the complainant discovered that it was incorrectly stated that he was not suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and High Blood Pressure, although this information had already been disclosed to the Insurance Company alongwith supporting documents. Hence the complainant / appellant sought cancellation of the policy via email dated 05.06.2017 due to incorrect details mentioned in the policy. It is alleged that the Insurance Company rejected the request stating that it was not made within the free-look period. Despite legal notice, the Insurance Company deducted Rs.20,045.35/- from the complainant’s bank account without consent. Therefore the complainant, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant / appellant had the right to cancel the policy within the 15 days free-look period but he failed to do so. Therefore, the policy could not be cancelled and the premium is payable as per terms and conditions. It was therefore prayed that the compliant be dismissed.

4. Opposite parties no.3 and 5 – Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) have submitted in their reply that the deduction of the premium amount from the complainant’s bank account was carried out by the Bank in accordance with the mandate provided by the complainant for such deduction.

5. Opposite party no.4 remained absent before the District Commission despite service of notice, hence was proceeded ex-parte.

6. Heard.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant / appellant argued the impugned order passed by the District Commission is erroneous. She argued that the insurance policy was issued with incorrect details regarding the medical condition of the appellant despite prior disclosure to the agent. She further argued that on seeking cancellation of the policy by the appellant the Insurance Company continued to recover the premium without rectifying the mis