1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that being influenced by the agent, Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh of the Ops, he proposed for Aajeevan Anand Policy floated by the Ops in which Mrs. Abanti Panda, the wife of the complainant was the insured and as per direction of the agent the complainant paid Rs.30, 000/- to the Ops during March, 2011 and signed the proposal form. It is submitted that the Ops issued policy bond Vide No.500-7259210 dt.25.3.2011 which was received by the complainant on 11.04.2011 and after going through the policy documents, the complainant could know that the terms of the policy were altogether different as that of assurances made by the agent at the time of proposal and hence the complainant being aggrieved contacted the agent as well as OPs over phone but nobody answered in a convincing manner. Lastly the complainant on 13.04.2011 returned the original policy documents to the Ops with request to cancel the policy and refund the money. The Ops-2 on contact informed that the policy has been cancelled and advised the complainant to contact with their local office but on contact to Bhubaneswar Office of the Ops, they pleaded their ignorance. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.30, 000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 25.03.2011 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation as well as Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant.
2. The Ops though entered their appearance through their A/R on 15.5.2014, neither preferred to file counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. After repeated adjournments, as the Ops did not take any step, we heard the matter from the complainant alone to decide this case on merit. We also perused the materials available on record.
3. In this case, the complainant stated that being influenced by the agent of the Ops, he proposed for Aajeevan Anand Policy in which his wife Mrs. Abanti Panda was insured and the complainant paid Rs.30, 000/- for which the Ops issued policy bond vide No.500-7259210 dt.25.03.2011 which was received on 11.04.2011. The complainant in support of his contentions has filed certain documents. On perusal of said documents it was ascertained that the above policy has been issued by the Ops in which the complainant is the policy holder and his wife is the life assured. The Ops have received Rs.28455/- from the complainant towards 1st premium vide a Cheque dt.20.3.2011. The case of the complainant is that, after perusal of policy documents, he came to know that the terms of the policy is quite different from the assurances and promises made by the agent at the time of proposal and when the agent was contacted, he did not respond for which the complainant returned the policy on 13.4.2011 to OP-2 with request to refund the money so deposited.
4. In absence of counter and participation of the Ops, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged and we also lost opportunity to hear anything from the Ops. On perusal of record, it was ascertained that the policy was issued on 25.3.2011 and the complainant says that he received the policy documents on 11.4.2011. The complainant has filed copy of email request dt.13.4.2011 to the Ops through which he has surrendered the policy. The Ops have also acknowledged the receipt of said letter and also requested the complainant to reconsider his decision as the policy is potential to give good return in long run. The complainant has also returned the original policy bond within the free look period of 15 days. The complainant has further stated that the OP.2 has intimated him that the policy has been canceled and requested the complainant to contact with local office. The complainant is yet to get his money in spite of contact to different quarters.
5. In this case as per terms of the policy, the complainant has surrendered the policy within the free look period as he is not satisfied with the terms of the policy. As such it was the duty of the OPs to return the money soon after receipt of cancellation request from the complainant. Further the OP-2 confirms about cancellation of the policy but after the said cancellation, the Ops failed to return the deposited amount to the complainant and hence non refund of money to the complainant after cancellation of the policy, in our opinion, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.28, 455/- towards insurance premium with interest @ 12% from 25.3.2011. Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony as noticed from the facts and circumstances of this case and also has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which he is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs in his favour will meet the ends of justice.
6. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.28, 455/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 25.03.2011 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
