Date of Filing : 21/10/2016
Order No. 13 dt. 31/01/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on the basis of the assurance of the agent invested in the policy of the o.p. insurance company that the policy would provide good return to the complainant and he was convinced by the agent that the policy is one time policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant invested a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant at the time of obtaining policy handed over all the documents and signed in a blank proposal form with the expectation that the said agent of o.p.nos. 1 & 2 will do needful with honesty. The complainant thereafter tried to contact with the agent but the agent avoided to receive the call of the complainant. The complainant thereafter made contact with the o.p. 1 & 2 wherefrom it was informed to the complainant that there will be no problem in getting policy certificate within free look period and it is one time policy. After 5 months from the issue of the cheque the complainant received an email from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 wherefrom he came to learn the policy no. and policy details from which it revealed that the policy term is 70 years, premium term 15 years, last premium date 27.02.2030, frequency of payment annual of Rs.1,93,003/- as yearly premium and date of maturity of the policy is 27.02.2086. After perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy he came to learn that the policy is not a onetime policy. The complainant wanted to cancel the policy but the o.p.nos. 1 & 2 did not accept the same since the complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for refund of the amount paid by the complainant and also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
O.p.nos.1,2 and 3 contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that all contracts of insurance are contracts and once entered into the contract is binding the all parties to the said contract and no one can claim or go beyond the terms and conditions of the contract. It was further stated that the policy holder after understanding and satisfying himself with the terms of the policy made proposal dated 26.02.2016 for obtaining the policy. The said proposal was duly signed by the complainant. It is settled principle of law that if a person has signed a document then there is presumption of law that he has read the document before signing the same unless there is a case of fraud. The complainant had an opportunity to peruse the policy document which inter alia contained the terms of the policy and the policy holder after receiving the policy could have prayed for cancellation of the policy within free look period but the said privilege was not availed of by the complainant. In order to make out a false case against the o.ps that the complainant was mislead by the o.ps. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided:-
- Whether the complainant had the policy with the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant expressed his willingness for cancellation of the policy within free look period?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant on the basis of the assurance of the agent invested in the policy of the o.p. insurance company that the policy would provide good return to the complainant and he was convinced by the agent that the policy is one time policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant invested a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant at the time of obtaining policy handed over all the documents and signed in a blank proposal form with the expectation that the said agent of o.p.nos. 1 & 2 will do needful with honesty. The complainant thereafter tried to contact with the agent but the agent avoided to receive the call of the complainant. The complainant thereafter made contact with the o.p. 1 & 2 wherefrom it was informed to the complainant that there will be no problem in getting policy certificate within free look period and it is one time policy. After 5 months from the issue of the cheque the complainant received an email from the o.p.nos. 1 & 2 wherefrom he came to learn the policy no. and policy details from which it revealed that the policy term is 70 years, premium term 15 years, last premium date 27.02.2030, frequency of payment annual of Rs.1,93,003/- as yearly premium and date of maturity of the policy is 27.02.2086. After perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy he came to learn that the policy is not a onetime policy. The complainant wanted to cancel the policy but the o.p.nos. 1 & 2 did not accept the same since the complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps for refund of the amount paid by the complainant and also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that all contracts of insurance are contracts and once entered into the contract is binding the all parties to the said contract and no one can claim or go beyond the terms and conditions of the contract. It was further stated that the policy holder after understanding and satisfying himself with the terms of the policy made proposal dated 26.02.2016 for obtaining the policy. The said proposal was duly signed by the complainant. It is settled principle of law that if a person has signed a document then there is presumption of law that he has read the document before signing the same unless there is a case of fraud. The complainant had an opportunity to peruse the policy document which inter alia contained the terms of the policy and the policy holder after receiving the policy could have prayed for cancellation of the policy within free look period but the said privilege was not availed of by the complainant. In order to make out a false case against the o.ps that the complainant was mislead by the o.ps. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above the o.ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant being a literate person put his signature on the proposal form and it is supposed that he on being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy filled up the proposal form. In the proposal form it was categorically mentioned the benefits to be enjoyed by the policy holder. After coming to know of the benefits of the policy he invested the amount. It is also found from the materials on record that at the time of application of the policy the complainant provided his details including PAN No., Adhaar No. etc. the proposal form was signed by the complainant, he even disclosed his annual income for the last 3 years. The complainant received the policy document on 05.04.2016 and within 15 days of free look period the complainant failed to make any prayer to the o.ps for cancellation of the policy. Since the complainant failed to avail the benefit of cancellation of the policy within free look period the complainant manufactured a story giving blame upon the agent of the company that without the knowledge of the complainant and the benefits in respect of the said policy as well as the terms and conditions of the policy he applied for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the caswe as well as the judgement cited by the Ld. Lawyer for the o.ps that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only when he has affixed his signature thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. The Apex Court laid down that the test of deficiency of service by stating that deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed as per contract in relation to a service (Ranveet Sing Bagga Vs K L M Royal Dutch Airlines [2000] 1 SCC 66) In view of the discussions as made hereinabove we hold that the complainant failed to prove that there was misselling of the policy by the o.ps and the complainant failed to pray for cancellation of the policy within free look period therefore the case filed by the complainant does not inspire any confidence that there was any fraud or misspelling of the policy on the part of the o.ps. Accordingly we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the cc no.465/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
