News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 1
January 01, 2026 : In a significant ruling on January 1, 2026, the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Raipur partly allowed a complaint filed by Smt. Rama Karmkar and her son against PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. and officials linked to Punjab National Bank, holding that the insurer had issued a different annuity policy than the one promised at the time of sale.
What the Dispute Was About
After the death of her younger son in April 2021, Smt. Rama Karmkar received ₹58.92 lakh as nominee under his life insurance and other benefits. According to the complaint, representatives associated with the insurer and the bank proposed a “PNB MetLife Plan of Life Annuity With Return of Purchase Price,” assuring her that she would receive a monthly annuity of ₹39,933 and that the invested amount would be returned to her nominee upon her death.
However, the policy issued on December 20, 2021 was “PNB MetLife Immediate Annuity Plan–117095V06,” which did not provide return of purchase price to the nominee and did not allow surrender under Clause 4.2. The complainants argued that the proposal form was in English, which they did not understand, and that they relied on the representations made by the agents.
The Commission examined call recordings submitted by the complainants. In those recordings, individuals linked to the sale reportedly acknowledged that the policy was meant to be the “Return of Purchase Price” variant. The insurer did not effectively rebut this evidence.
Insurer’s Defence
The insurance company argued that the policy contract was issued as per the proposal form and that the complainant had signed after being informed of the terms. It also contended that the complaint was filed beyond the free-look period and that the policy conditions clearly barred surrender after a certain stage.
However, the Commission noted that the insurer failed to prove proper delivery of a July 9, 2024 letter allegedly sent to the policyholder. It also found that the restrictive surrender clause was contrary to statutory protections and amounted to unfair trade practice in the facts of the case.
Commission’s Findings
The Commission held that issuing the “Immediate Annuity Plan” instead of the promised “Return of Purchase Price” plan constituted deficiency in service. It observed that the complainant had invested ₹58.92 lakh on the understanding that her nominee would receive the corpus amount after her death, which was not the case under the policy actually issued.
Refund and Compensation Ordered
The Commission directed PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. to refund the entire deposited amount of ₹58.92 lakh within one month, along with 7 percent annual interest from the date of deposit until payment. The monthly annuity payments already made will be adjusted against the refundable amount.
Additionally, the insurer has been ordered to pay ₹50,000 towards mental and physical harassment and ₹20,000 as litigation costs.
The order clarifies that if the complainants wish to opt for another suitable policy, the insurer may issue a fresh policy in accordance with their choice.
The ruling reinforces that insurers and their distribution partners must clearly explain policy features, especially where senior citizens invest large lump sums, and that misrepresentation in financial product sales will invite consumer liability.
Case Reference : Complaint Case No. SC/22/CC/08/2024 – Smt. Rama Karmkar & Anr. vs. PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
