This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab dated 26.05.2017 in First Appeal No. 678/2015. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner Kirandeep Kaur filed a consumer complaint against the respondent / insurance company on the allegation that she purchased insurance plan from the opposite parties on premium of Rs.99,000/- by cheque no. 667663 dated 25.2.14. The opposite party despite of having received the premium, failed to send the insurance policy and terms and conditions. The complainant made complaint of non-delivery of insurance policy and terms and conditions to the opposite party on several occasions but insurance policy was not supplied to him. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Forum Amritsar seeking direction to the opposite party to immediately cancel the insurance policy and refund sum of Rs.99,000/- to her. 3. The opposite party on being served resisted the complaint by filing written statement. It was admitted that complainant had purchased the insurance policy on payment of Rs.99,000/- by cheque. The opposite party, however, denied the allegation of deficiency in service and pleaded that original policy bond was issued in favour of the complainant on 26.02.2014 and was despatched to the complainant on 01.03.014 through speed post vide receipt no.EA77904527 IN. As per the report of the postal authorities, original policy bond was duly delivered at the address of the complainant on 21.03.2014 against receipt issued by the complainant herself. It was pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant had a free look period of 15 days period from the date of receipt of insurance policy, during which if she so desired, she could have opted out from the insurance policy and sought refund. The complainant failed to exercise said option during free look period but on an after-though in order to get away from the insurance contract, she has taken a false plea of non receipt of insurance policy bond. 4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence concluded on the basis of testimony of the postman Paramjeet Singh that speed post parcel containing the insurance policy bond was delivered at the residence of the complainant to one Rajbir Kaur. The District Forum treated said delivery to Rajbir Kaur as delivery to the complainant and took a view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 5. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence agreed with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. 6. Counsel for the complainant / petitioner has categorically stated that both the Fora below have fallen in error in holding delivery of the speed post parcel containing the insurance policy bond to Rajbir Kaur at the address of the complainant as valid delivery of insurance policy and terms and conditions to the complainant. It is submitted that Fora below have failed to appreciate that complainant had produced her ration card in evidence to show that so called Rajbir Kaur was not her relative. Therefore, service of insurance bond to Rajbir Kaur could not be treated as delivery of the said insurance policy bond to the complainant. 7. Counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Only question which needs consideration in this revision petition is whether or not the insurance policy bond parcel sent through speed post was delivered to the complainant? 9. In order to find answer to the aforesaid question, the testimony of postman Paramjit Singh is material. Paramjit Singh postman in his affidavit, copy of which is P-10 has stated that on 07.03.2014 he delivered the speed post parcel at the address of the complainant Kirandeep Kaur i.e. 16, Shaheed Nagar, Chhehartta. The said postman in his cross examination by counsel the complainant stated that said parcel was delivered to Rajbir Kaur and he did not seek any proof from Rajbir Kaur about her relation with complainant. From this it is evident that insurance policy bond was delivered by the postman to Rajbir Kaur without verifying whether or not she was related to the complainant and what was her relationship with her. The said delivery in my opinion cannot be termed as delivery of insurance policy bond to Kirandeep Kaur. Merely because postman had delivered the insurance policy bond at the address of the complainant, it cannot be assumed that it was delivered to the right person and the insurance policy bond reached to the complainant. 10. Looking from a different angle. It would be seen that consumer complaint was filed by Kirandeep Kaur in July 2014, that is within five months of having applied for the insurance plan on payment of Rs.99,000/-. The aforesaid short time gap between payment of cheque for premium and filing of the complaint also raises presumption about the truthfulness of the version of the complainant that she did not receive the insurance policy bond / terms and conditions. That being the case, the complainant never got the opportunity to exercise free look period of 15 days. Complainant has categorically stated that she had approached the opposite party on several occasions calling upon them to deliver her insurance policy bond and the terms and conditions but in vain. The aforesaid conduct of the opposite party in my opinion amounts to deficiency in service. This aspect of the matter has been over-looked by the Fora below. Therefore, impugned order cannot be sustained. 11. For the reasons detailed above, I allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the opposite party to refund amount of Rs.99,000/- to the complainant within four weeks with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization. | 
