Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This is an Appeal filed by Sri Nilotpal Roychaudhuri in respect of the decision of Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) dated 21-12-2016, whereby the complaint case filed by him bearing no. CC/101/2011 has been dismissed.

The facts, as narrated in the complaint case, in short, are that he was deceived by the OP No. 4, an agent of the OP No. 1 Insurance Company.  After receiving the policy bond, the Complainant detected various discrepancies in respect of the subject policy vis-à-vis what was promised to him by the OP No. 4.  Therefore, he urged the OP Insurance Company by his letter dated 11-08-2010 to refund the premium amount, but in vain; hence, the complaint.

The OP Nos. 1&2, on the other hand, submitted that since the cancellation request was made beyond the free-look period, the request of the Complainant could not be acceded to.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1&2 and gone through the documents on record. Other Respondents did not turn up despite service of notice in accordance with law.

Be it mentioned here that although the Appellant alleged in his Memo of Appeal that the policy bond was delivered to him after long time since issuance of the same, no material proof is forthcoming before us to satisfy ourselves about the veracity of such allegation.  In fact, we find that the Appellant has not even mentioned the date when did he actually receive the policy from the Respondents.  Further, neither in the petition of complaint nor in the legal notice issued by his Ld. Advocate to the Respondent Insurance Company there is any whisper in this regard.

That apart, since the free-look period begins from the date of receipt of policy bond from the Insurance Company, it was totally irrelevant, whether the same was received by him shortly after issuance of the same or belatedly. It was incumbent upon him to establish that he approached the Respondents for cancellation of the policy within the free-look period which he miserably failed to establish.

It further transpires from the impugned order that the allegation of forging of Appellant’s signature in the proposal form could not be conclusively established although the matter was referred to a hand-writing expert by the Ld. District Forum. 

That apart, it is well known that unlike traditional life insurance polices, unit linked policies have a list of applicable charges that are deducted from the premium amount.  Since unit linked insurance plans are directly linked to market performance and the investment risks in investment portfolio is entirely borne by the policyholder, one needs to thoroughly understand the risks involved and one’s own risk absorption capacity before deciding to invest in such policies. It is always advisable to look before you leap. 

As noted hereinabove, the Appellant was always at liberty to cancel the said policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same from the Respondents.  That being not done, the Ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint case.

We find no merit in this Appeal.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent Nos. 1&2.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No costs.