PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.4.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the OP/appellant to cancel the policy, refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 2. The facts, in brief, are that agent of the OP visited the house of the complainant and offered a saving plan whereby complainant had to pay a single premium of Rs.50,000/- on which the OP was to pay interest @ 16% for three years and thereafter he was to get Rs.70-75,000/- and in addition to it, an insurance cover for Rs.5,00,000/- was to be provided to any of his relations, which could not be given to him, as he had attained the age of 60 years. It was alleged by the complainant that blank forms were got signed from him and also from his son-Mr.Inderpreet Singh. However, he was surprised to receive a call from the policy renewal department to deposit another sum of Rs.50,000/-. He read the policy schedule wherein it was mentioned that the policy term was 25 years and semi-annual premium of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid. He immediately contacted the agent of the OP who sold the policy and he assured that the policy was being changed to one time premium but the same was not done. He also wrote a letter to the OP with a request to cancel the policy and refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- upon which he was assured that policy would be cancelled and the amount would be refunded to him within a few days. However, he was shocked to receive a letter dated 12.11.2010 stating that the policy could not be cancelled and the amount of Rs.50,000/- could not be refunded as the request had not been made within 15 days free look period. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed. 3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP but as none appeared on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. 4. The complainant led evidence in support of his case. 5. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the complainant and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP. 7. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP has argued that the complainant was free to cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the policy documents and his failure to do so deprived him of this right. Thereafter, the policy could not be cancelled and therefore, the order passed by the District Forum cannot sustain. We do not find any merit in this contention. Firstly there is no document produced by the appellant/OP to suggest as to when the policy papers were sent to the complainant and from which date the said period of 15 days is to be counted. Secondly there is no document produced by the appellant/OP to suggest if the complainant was ever informed about his right, and if so on which date, to cancel the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy document. The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP produced a letter in this respect but the same does not bear any date, on which it was issued by the OP. For the sake of convenience and to identify the said letter we have today marked it as Annexure R-1. The OP has not produced any evidence to suggest as to on which date the letter was delivered to the complainant. It is admitted by the appellant/OP that the complainant could cancel the policy within a period of 15 days from the receipt of such letter, which was being produced during the arguments in the present appeal. The free look in period of 15 days would, therefore, start from the date when this fact is made known to the complainant through the letter Annexure R-1. He has already exercised his option to cancel the policy before the expiry of the said period. The appellant/OP has therefore, wrongly refused the complainant to cancel the policy. 9. The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that no such letter like Annexure R-1 was issued to the complainant and he was never told about the said 15 days free look in period by the appellant. The appellants have not produced any evidence as mentioned above to disprove this fact, rather chose to be proceeded against ex parte. The letter Annexure R-1 was never shown the light of the day till it was produced in the appeal before this Commission. We can therefore, safely conclude that Annexure R-1 was never sent to the complainant, he was never informed about free look in period of 15 days and therefore, he was deprived by the appellant of his right to cancel the policy. This is an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP/appellant, wherein the basic rights of the complainant as required by Insurance Regulatory and Development Policy Authority are not intimated to the consumers. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly legal and valid. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant to the complainant. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 13th October, 2011 sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER mp
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
