Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Ravinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12   of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that   opposite party No.1 is an Insurance company having its branch office at 6^th floor, SCO 10-11, Above DCB Bank, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana and opposite party No.2 is its head Grievance Redressal Office. The complainant purchased one Non-Ulip Life Insurance policy bearing No. 0325817806 on 24.11.2015 by paying premium of Rs,. 49,900/- through cheque No. 005715 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Mall Road, Amritsar. The complainant received the policy documents on 23.12.2015 through speed post at his residence. After receipt of the policy documents, when the complainant did not agree with the terms and conditions of the policy , sent the policy to opposite party No.2 through speed post No. EP-352349695-IN on 28.12.2015 for cancellation under freelook provision. The opposite parties transferred the refund of Rs. 47,154/- to complainant’s account by deducting Rs. 2746/-. As per IRDA guidelines opposite parties can deduct only stamp duty and proportionate risk premium charges for the period in which policy remained active. Stamp duty was Rs. 75/- only. But opposite parties deducted Rs. 2671/- illegally. The complainant through e-mail dated 20.1.2016 requested the opposite parties to provide mortality table according to which opposite parties deducted Rs. 2671/-, but opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2671/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the complainant without any further delay ;

(b)     Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 50000/- as compensation for the mental sufferings , harassment  suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the answering opposite parties as the request of the complainant for cancellation of policy was received on 6.1.2016 and the same was expeditiously processed  by the opposite parties strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy document ; that complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the contract under policy No. 0325817806 stands already terminated upon payment of the permissible amount to the complainant ; that complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint due to his own act and conduct; that within 15 days on the receipt of this policy, the policy holder has the option to review the terms and conditions of the policy and if the policy holder disagrees to any of the terms and conditions, he has an option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objections. The policy holder shall be entitled to a refund comprising all the regular premiums , paid less the proportionate amount of risk premium for the period the life assured was  covered and the expenses incurred by the company on the medical examination and stamp duty charges.

3.       The opposite party has refunded the amount of Rs. 47154/- calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has concealed true and correct facts from this Forum just to derive illegal financial gains. On merits , facts narrated in the complaint have specifically been denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of first premium receipt Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, copy of e-mail Ex.C-4, copy of speed post tracking report Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.S.K.Vyas,Adv. counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sandeep Gupta, Manager Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP1,2/17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.

6.       There is no denying the fact that the complainant purchased one Non Ulip Life Insurance policy No.0325817806 dated 24.11.2015 from the opposite parties on payment of premium to the tune of Rs. 49,900/-. The complainant received the policy documents on 23.12.2015 through speed post at his residence. However, complainant was not agreeing with the terms and conditions of the policy, so the complainant sent this policy back to opposite party No.2 through speed post No. EP-352349695-IN on 28.12.2015 for cancellation under freelook provision. This request was delivered to opposite party No.2 on 1.1.2016. The opposite parties transferred a refund of Rs. 47,154/- in the account of the complainant after deducting Rs. 2746/- from the premium amount, paid by the complainant . As per IRDA guidelines, the opposite party could deduct only stamp duty and proportionate risk premium charges  for the period in which the policy remained active. The stamp duty was Rs. 75/- only. But opposite parties deducted Rs. 2671/- illegally. The risk of the policy started on 8.12.2015 and the policy was cancelled on 1.1.2016. The policy remained active  for 24 days only. It is the grouse of the complainant that the opposite parties have wrongly deducted a sum of Rs. 2671/- from the premium paid by him.

7.       But, however, the opposite parties have relied upon clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy which reads as under:-

          “Free look period

          Within 15 days (thirty(30) days in case this policy is issued under the provisions of IRDA guidelines on Distance Marketing of Insurance Products) of the receipt of this policy, the policy holder has the option to review the terms and conditions of the policy and if the policyholder disagrees to any of the terms and conditions, he has an option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objections. The policyholder shall be entitled to a refund comprising the all Regular Premiums (excluding applicable taxes) paid , less the proportionate amount of risk premium (including the total of Rider Premiums, if any) for the period the Life Assured was on cover and the expenses incurred by the company on medical examination and stamp duty charges.”

The opposite party has also furnished a  table of deduction made by them in their written statement  which is reproduced for ready reference:-

8.       From the aforesaid table, it becomes amply clear that an amount of Rs. 93.43561644 have been deducted on the basis of the service tax, stamp fee Rs. 75/- while a sum of Rs. 2577.534247 have been deducted on account of risk premium and in all Rs. 2745.969863 have been deducted from the premium amount. So the contention of the complainant that an amount of Rs.2671/- have been wrongly deducted stands duly rebutted from the perusal of the tabular deduction provided by the opposite party in the written version. As such it is proved on record that deductions have been rightly made and the balance amount has already been transferred to the account of the complainant.  As such, instant complaint is not legally maintainable. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 20.09.2016.