FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

The brief facts of the case are that on 23^rd March, 2012 the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- against BSL1 Vision Plan bearing Policy No. 005471616 to the OP/Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. Complainant was not aware about the terms & conditions of the subject policy and not in a condition to pay any further premium. On 11.04.2013 the complainant approached the OP 2 to refund the deposited amount with interest but the OPs/Insurer never transferred the policy amount with interest. Ultimately, the Insurer vide letter dated 14.06.2018 turned down the request of the complainant and also advised to agitate his grievance to the Grievance Redressal Officer. Grievance Redressal Officer of the Insurer also rejected the prayer of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the consumer complaint seeking reliefs fully mentioned in the prayer portion of the complaint.

The complaint has been resisted by the OP 1 by filing written version. OP 1 in its WV has stated that the complainant received the policy document on 2^nd April, 2012 but he raised his complaint on 11^th April, 2013. As per terms & conditions of the policy, complainant has to raise grievance within the free look period but no such request for cancellation of policy was made within the free look period. Complainant failed to pay renewal premiums and remained silent for more than 05 years. On account of non payment of renewal premium the answering OP terminated the policy. Thus, there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the Insurer. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

OPs 2 to 4 despite of notice of the complaint have failed to file written Version within the limitation provided u/s 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No request for condonation of delay or extension of time for filing Written Version is made. Therefore, right of the OPs 2 to 4 to file WV was closed.

Complainant Sri Tarak Nath Mallick has filed his evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint. Answering OP/Insurer did not file their evidence by way of affidavit supporting their defence.

It is well settled law that written version is only pleading of party and version is not substitute for proof of controversial facts. It is well settled law that version of OP and evidence of OP relating to controversial facts are entirely two different concepts under law. It is held that version could not be treated as evidence of party relating to controversial facts as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and right to adduce evidence relating to controversial facts is governed under other independent section of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is well settled law that pleadings are not substitute for evidence. In a decision reported in HLJ 2017 H. P. High Court 1011 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. –Vs- Champa Devi & Others). The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to observe the distinguish been written version & right to adduce evidence under independent sections of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

It is well settled law that Consumer Protection Act is beneficial legislation enacted by Parliament of India in order to protect interest of consumers. It is also true that every policy document sent by the company is accompanied by a forwarding letter, which mentions that in case policy holder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and conditions of the policy, he can withdraw/return the policy within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document i.e. under Free Look Option. It is true that policy document received by the complainant on 2^nd April, 2012 but he raised his complaint on 11^th April, 2013 i.e. beyond the period of Free Look Option. Complainant also failed to pay the renewal premium for which he is not entitled to receive any benefit in respect of the subject policy and the Insurer terminated the policy on 23^rd March, 2015. In our opinion, the OP/Insurer committed wrong while rejected the prayer submitted by the complainant. It was the obligation of the OP/Insurer to refund the deposited amount of the subject policy after deducting 10 percent as service charge. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs 1 & 2/Insurer. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get relief against the OPs 1 & 2/Insurer but he will not get any relief against the OPs 3 & 4 being the insurance agent and also facilitator  between the Insurance Company and the Policy Holder.

ased on the above discussion, we find merit in the present consumer complaint and accordingly C.C. No. 449 of 2018 is allowed in part with the following directions:-

1. OPs 1 & 2 shall refund the entire premium amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- after deducting 10 percent as service charge to the complainant within 45 days from today along with compensation of simple interest  at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of payment till the realization of the amount.
2. The OPs 1&2/Insurer shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within the statutory period.

Copy of the judgment be given to the parties as per rules.