BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Saran Singh S/o S.Attar Singh, R/o H.No.2653, Phase-VII, Mohali – 160061

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]       Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Unit No.601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titanium, Off. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 40063, through its Managing Director

2]       Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.28-30, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Manager

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                            PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                      MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.M.L.Batra, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.            

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

                The case of the complainant is that, he opted to take two policies as “Single Paid Premium Policy”, one in the name of his grand daughter Ameek Kaur and another in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur and as such paid Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/-each) as premium.  However, he did not receive the policy bond papers till 18.11.2009, so visited OPs requesting them to issue Original Policies, whereupon they issued him duplicate policies on 27.11.2009 mentioning therein the minimum surrendering period as five years instead of one year.  He requested the OPs to cancel one of the Policy bearing No.500-3565735 issued in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur and return of Rs.40,000/- paid as premium, which they declined. Hence, this present complaint.

2]             OPs filed joint reply. While admitting the factual matrix of the case, they pleaded that the complainant signed the proposal form, after understanding the terms & conditions and implication of the policy.  It is also pleaded that the complainant had made a declaration of having understood the product brochure and the terms of the contract of insurance. It is stated that as per the records of OPs, the Policy document along with the copy of the proposal form was duly delivered to the complainant on 14.5.2009 vide Blue Dart AWB No.44295270515 to the address mentioned in the proposal form, and the same was duly received by the complainant, as it never returned to the OP as undelivered.  Furthermore, the complainant approached the OPs for duplicate bond on 19.11.2009, wherein indemnity bond was submitted by the complainant and the duplicate policy bond was also sent to him on 24.11.2009. It is also submitted that the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy on 23.12.2009, which was  duly replied on 18.1.2010 vide Annexure R-5 that since the free look period has lapsed, so, the cancellation of the said policy is not possible, as per terms of the policy. The complainant was also aware about the terms & conditions of the policy.  Denying all the allegations made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]             The case of the complainant is that he purchased two Unit Linked Emdowment Policies, in the name of his grand-daughter Ameek Kaur and another in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur by paying Rs.40,000/- towards each of the policy, as premium, payable semi-annually.  

6]             The grouse of the complainant is that he did not receive the policy document from OPs.  As such, requested the OPs to supply policy documents, whereupon they issued him duplicate policies on 27.11.2009, mentioning therein that the minimum surrendering period was five years, instead of one year, as assured at the time of taking policy. On this, complainant sought cancellation of policy No.500-3565735 in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur, but OPs rejected his request. 

7]             The ld.Counsel for OPs stated that the complainant was duly sent the policy documents well in time.  He was informed about this fact, in response to his letters, vide letter Ann.R-5 to R-6.  His legal notice was also duly replied by OPs vide Ann.R-8.

8]             We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant that he did not receive the policy document.  If the complainant had not received the policy document well in time, he should have taken this matter with OPs immediately after paying the premium of the policies, which has not been done.

9]             So far as the terms & conditions of the insurance policy are concerned, the complainant has himself singed the proposal form (Annexure R-1) and Illustration of Benefits form (Ann.R-2).  Once the complainant is signatory to the proposal form (Annexure R-1) and Illustration Benefits Form (Ann.R-2), he cannot, at this later stage, wriggle out from those terms & conditions contained therein and say that he was not aware about it.  Therefore, the letter of the complainant (Ann.R-9), seeking cancellation of policy, cannot be taken into consideration, being sent at a much belated stage. 

10]           More so, Clause No.2.9 of Policy Bond (Annexure R-4), stipulates as under:-

“2.9 Free look option

If You disagree with any of the terms and conditions of the Policy, You have the option to return the original Policy Bond alongwith a letter stating reasons for the objection within 15 days of receipt of the Policy Bond (“the free look period”).  The Policy will accordingly be cancelled and an amount equal to the Premium received less stamp duty less underwriting expenses incurred by The Company will be refunded to the Policyholder.  All the rights under the Policy shall stand extinguished immediately on the cancellation of the Policy under the free look option.”

11]           However, as the complainant himself had not returned the policy document within the above stipulated period of 15 days, therefore, now he cannot seek the cancellation of the policy purchased by him alleging false allurement on the part of OPs.

12]           The ld.Counsel for the complainant has placed on record one circular, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), dated 20.9.2011, to All Life Insurers and non-life insurers, regarding Delay in claim intimation/documents submission with respect to all life insurance contract and all non-life individual and group insurance contract.  But these guidelines are of no help to the complainant being not applicable to case in hand.  Moreover, these guidelines will have only prospective effect and not the retrospective effect.

13]           So far as the imposing of surrender charges, if any, are concerned, in our opinion, the same are will be applicable as per terms & conditions of the policy bond (Ann.R-4).

14]           Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Anil P. Tadkalkar, 1(1996) CPJ 159 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“Moreover, we have not been able to understand how the Complainant can claim refund of all the premia paid by him during the period of the policies remained alive and the LIC had covered the risk.  If during this period the Complainant had died (an even which did not occur) the insurer i.e. LIC would have had to pay the full amount due under the policies even though only some fraction of the premia would have been realized by that time by the insurer. Hence on cancelling the policies the Complainant is only entitled to the surrender values of the two policies. It is immaterial what circumstances prompted him to cancel the policies.”

15]           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is having no merits and deserves to be dismissed. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.