Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/645

Nirmal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sherry K. Singla

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 645 of 2012

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 22.5.2012 

                             Date of Decision:  19.3.2015

 

Nirmal Sharma, aged about 60 years, wife of Jatinder Pal Sharma, Advocate # 169-G, Partap Nagar, Near Ekta Colony, Patiala-147001

Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office Unit 601 and 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titanum Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) Mumbai through its Managing Director.
2. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Jhandewalan Branch, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, Plot No. 2-E/1, Opp. Jhandewalan Metro Station, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-55, through its R.M./authorised person.
3. Branch Manager/Authorised Person Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, Near Narain Continental Hotel, Patiala.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         Sh. K.S. Cheema, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.47 dated 18.1.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the OPs’)  on the allegations that Mr. Mukesh Gupta an employee of the OPs contacted the complainant and requested for investment in one time payment and on the basis of conversation with him, he deputed one Gurmeet Singh of Local Branch, Chhotti Bardari, Patiala for collecting the documents. The complainant issued two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Rajindera Hospital Branch, Patiala and showed her willingness to purchase the policy and to invest the amount as one time payment and the cheques were got encashed on 11.8.2010. Then OPs issued two policies i.e. bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834 instead of one policy to the complainant and the policies were not delivered to the complainant directly, rather, it was received by her neighbourer and handed over the same to the complainant after 3-4 days. The complainant contacted Mr. Mukesh Gupta and disclosed all the facts that two policies have been sent to her for the term of 27 years and that the Company instead of one policy had inadvertently issued two policies. Then the complainant made a complaint to the Ops on their Toll Free Number 1800 102 4444. The complainant also approached their local office-OP No. 3 on 6.9.2010 within the stipulated period for the cancellation of the policies and one Mr. Rahul disclosed that Mr. Santosh of Patiala Branch is the dealing hand and request was made for cancellation. However, lateron the complainant was informed that the Company received the request beyond the free look period, therefore, unable to process the request of the complainant for cancellation. The complainant had been approaching Mr. Santosh time and again and he had kept both the policies and assured to take the matter with the higher office and on stressing of the complainant, one policy was sent to the concerned Officer on 19.11.2010 and the other policy was returned and now the Ops are adamant not to receive the second policy. Vide letter dated 24.11.2010, it was intimated that the policies cannot be cancelled. Earlier the complainant was ready to continue with one policy for three years but it has become very difficult for the complainant to continue with both the policies as she was retired employee of Government Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and was getting pension of just Rs. 12,000/- per month. The official of the Op had played a fraud with the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed for a refund of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed reply taking legal objections that the complaint had been filed by the complainant just to injure the goodwill of the Ops, therefore, liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; intricate questions of law and facts were involved, which required voluminous evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings under the Act, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court; the complainant had concealed the material fact, therefore, she was stopped by her act and conduct to file this complaint. In fact the complainant herself voluntarily offered to obtain the insurance policies after signing the proposal form alongwith benefit illustrations and the regulations that she had understood the contents of the proposal form, therefore, they had issued two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834, despatched on 19.8.2010 and delivered to the complainant on 23.8.2010 by Blue Dart Courier. The complainant was offered the option of returning the original policy within 15 days of the receipt thereof, in case she was not agreeable to continue with the policies but she did not avail that option. Even thereafter the complainant intended to continue with Policy No. 500-6111834 vide her letter dated 19.11.2010. The complaint was also not maintainable as there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op. The OP had received a complaint on 9.9.2010 with regard to aforesaid policies alleging mis-selling and request for cancellation. The OP carried out a detailed investigation wherein it was found that there was no mis-selling of the policies. The policies were issued as per the terms and conditions and information made available by the complainant in the proposal form and moreover, vide letter dated 19.10.2010, she had agreed to continue with Policy No. 500-6111834, therefore, policies cannot be cancelled but can be surrendered at any point, subject to policy terms and conditions and that the complainant was not a consumer, therefore, no locus standi to file the complaint. On merits, the same averments with regard to filling up the proposal form, issuance of the policies and request for cancellation was received, investigated and replied and it was not made within a “Free Look Period” of 15 days, therefore, not accepted. It was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, letter Ex. C-2, policy No. 5006111834 Ex. C-3, letters Exs. C-4 to 6, application Ex. C-7, letter Ex. C-8, policy No. 500-61111271 Ex. C-9, affidavit of Satnam Kaur Ex. C-10. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Bhatnagar Ex. R-1, delivery reports Exs. R-2 & 3, letter Ex. R-4, premium receipt Ex. R-5, policy specification Ex. R-6, fund transmission notice Ex. R-7, policy bond Ex. R-8, proposal form Ex. R-9, benefit illustration Ex. R-10, cheque Ex. R-11, letters Exs. R-12 to 14, premium receipt Ex. R-15, policy specification Ex. R-16, fund transaction notice Ex. R-17, policy bond Ex. R-18, proposal for Ex. R-19, benefit illustration Ex. R-20, medical report Ex. R-21, pan card copy Ex. R-22, a/c statements Exs. R-23 & 24, voter card Ex. R-25, cheque Ex. R-26, letters Exs. R-27 to Ex. R-30.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                It was contended by the counsel for the complainant that she had applied for one policy but was given two policies. She had filled in two proposal forms, issued two cheques, received two policies. Lateron also asked to continue with one policy. Therefore, the plea so taken by the complainant is not acceptable on the basis of record itself.

9.                It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that no doubt that two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834 were issued by the Ops and it is also an admitted fact that there was 15 days free look period and option was with the complainant to cancel those policies within that stipulated period. Certainly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy in case he terms and conditions of the policies were not acceptable to the complainant, she had a right to cancel it within the free look period of 15 days. The counsel for the complainant says that she had made a request on 6.9.2010 to cancel the policy. It is an admitted fact that the policy was delivered to one Satnam Kaur on 23.8.2010 as per the document relied upon by the Op Ex. R-2. By this documents, the date of delivery of the policies is 23.8.2010 and received by Satnam , # 169 G, Pratap Nagar, Patiala whereas the address of the complainant is same as per the address given in the complaint but certainly Satnam is not a complainant. As alleged by the complainant, she is her neighbourer and she has filed one affidavit Ex. C-1, who has stated that in the month of August, 2010, a courier boy from Blue Dart came to her house but the complainant was Out of Station, therefore, she had received the letter and delivered to the complainant after 3-4 days. In case it is taken as 3 days then the date of delivery to the complainant is 26.8.2010. In case we go through the letter Ex. C-3 issued by the Ops in the name of the complainant that is Welcome letter in which it was offered that in case the policy is not to your satisfaction, you can withdraw your policy with a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. Therefore, 15 days are from the date of receipt of the policy. In case the policy was received by the complainant after 3 days from Satnam Kaur, who had received on 23.8.2010 and in that way, she had received the policy document on 26.8.2010. Although one letter dated 6.9.2010 has been placed on the record by the counsel for the complainant but it is not attached with any postal receipt or any other receipt. It is not clear what was the mode of sending this letter to the Op, therefore, this letter cannot be relied upon to say that the letter regarding cancellation of policy was sent by the complainant to the OP on 6.9.2010. However, the letter issued by the Ops Ex. C-4 makes it clear that they would like to draw your attention to their response dated 9.11.2010 to address to your concern and vide letter dated 9.11.2010, it was referred that your complaint was received on 9.9.2010 whereas as per Blue Dart Courier receipt, it was delivered on 23.8.2010, therefore, your cancellation request was received beyond the period of 15 days, therefore, it cannot be considered. However, in case the date of receipt of the policy to the complainant is taken as 26.8.2010 then the complaint dated 9.9.2010 regarding cancellation of the policy is correct. It is pertinent to mention here that vide letter dated 19.11.2010 Ex. C-7, she had requested to the Ops that she had received two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834, now she had unable to continue with both the policies, therefore, request was made to cancel policy No. 500-6111271 and that she will continue with the other policy, therefore, out of the two policies, the case of the complainant can be considered only with regard to one policy bearing No. 500-6111271 because with regard to the second policy, she vide letter dated 19.11.2010 had intimated to the Ops to continue their policy. Therefore, the Company was not under any obligation to cancel that policy.

9.                Now we have to see whether the request of the complainant to cancel the policy No. 500-6111271 was within the time? In case the date is taken from the date of receipt of the policy document by the complainant then it cannot be taken as 23.8.2010 because on that day, it was received by one Satnam, who has filed her affidavit stating that policy document was received by her when the complainant was away from the house and was out of station and delivered the same to the complainant after 3-4 days. No contrary evidence has been produced on the record by the Ops. Certainly, the complaint was received by the Ops on 9.9.2010 as per their own document Ex. C-5, therefore, 15 days are to be counted from 26.8.2010. In case 15 days are counted from that date then the request for cancellation was received within 15 days and the Ops were required to cancel the policies but they did not consider the request of the complainant because they took the date of receipt of the policies as 23.8.2010 without discussing that the policy document was not received by the complainant in person. Smt. Satnam, who had received the document has filed her affidavit stating that she had received the policy documents on behalf of the complainant and delivered her after 3-4 days and there is no rebuttal to this evidence produced by the Ops. Therefore, according to the terms and conditions, the complainant had lodged cancellation of the policies within a period of 15 days lateron she gave in writing vide letter dated 19.11.2010 that she wants to cancel only policy No. 500-6111271 and would like to continue the other policy No. 500-6111834. Therefore, the District Forum should have partly allowed the complaint accepting the cancellation of one policy but without discussing the entire evidence on the record in detail, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is not based upon on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record.

10.              In view of the above, we accept the appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The respondents/opposite parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- received against policy No. 500-6111271 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt till payment. They are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which proceedings under Section 27 of the CP Act shall be initiated against them. 

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

March            19, 2015.                                                       (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member

 

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No. 645 of 2012

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 22.5.2012 

                             Date of Decision:  19.3.2015

 

Nirmal Sharma, aged about 60 years, wife of Jatinder Pal Sharma, Advocate # 169-G, Partap Nagar, Near Ekta Colony, Patiala-147001

Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office Unit 601 and 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titanum Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) Mumbai through its Managing Director.
2. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Jhandewalan Branch, 2^nd and 3^rd Floor, Plot No. 2-E/1, Opp. Jhandewalan Metro Station, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-55, through its R.M./authorised person.
3. Branch Manager/Authorised Person Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, Near Narain Continental Hotel, Patiala.

Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

First Appeal against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         Sh. K.S. Cheema, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 14.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.47 dated 18.1.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘the OPs’)  on the allegations that Mr. Mukesh Gupta an employee of the OPs contacted the complainant and requested for investment in one time payment and on the basis of conversation with him, he deputed one Gurmeet Singh of Local Branch, Chhotti Bardari, Patiala for collecting the documents. The complainant issued two cheques of Rs. 1 lac each drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Rajindera Hospital Branch, Patiala and showed her willingness to purchase the policy and to invest the amount as one time payment and the cheques were got encashed on 11.8.2010. Then OPs issued two policies i.e. bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834 instead of one policy to the complainant and the policies were not delivered to the complainant directly, rather, it was received by her neighbourer and handed over the same to the complainant after 3-4 days. The complainant contacted Mr. Mukesh Gupta and disclosed all the facts that two policies have been sent to her for the term of 27 years and that the Company instead of one policy had inadvertently issued two policies. Then the complainant made a complaint to the Ops on their Toll Free Number 1800 102 4444. The complainant also approached their local office-OP No. 3 on 6.9.2010 within the stipulated period for the cancellation of the policies and one Mr. Rahul disclosed that Mr. Santosh of Patiala Branch is the dealing hand and request was made for cancellation. However, lateron the complainant was informed that the Company received the request beyond the free look period, therefore, unable to process the request of the complainant for cancellation. The complainant had been approaching Mr. Santosh time and again and he had kept both the policies and assured to take the matter with the higher office and on stressing of the complainant, one policy was sent to the concerned Officer on 19.11.2010 and the other policy was returned and now the Ops are adamant not to receive the second policy. Vide letter dated 24.11.2010, it was intimated that the policies cannot be cancelled. Earlier the complainant was ready to continue with one policy for three years but it has become very difficult for the complainant to continue with both the policies as she was retired employee of Government Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and was getting pension of just Rs. 12,000/- per month. The official of the Op had played a fraud with the complainant. Hence, the complaint was filed for a refund of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and compensation for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed reply taking legal objections that the complaint had been filed by the complainant just to injure the goodwill of the Ops, therefore, liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; intricate questions of law and facts were involved, which required voluminous evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings under the Act, therefore, the matter be relegated to the Civil Court; the complainant had concealed the material fact, therefore, she was stopped by her act and conduct to file this complaint. In fact the complainant herself voluntarily offered to obtain the insurance policies after signing the proposal form alongwith benefit illustrations and the regulations that she had understood the contents of the proposal form, therefore, they had issued two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834, despatched on 19.8.2010 and delivered to the complainant on 23.8.2010 by Blue Dart Courier. The complainant was offered the option of returning the original policy within 15 days of the receipt thereof, in case she was not agreeable to continue with the policies but she did not avail that option. Even thereafter the complainant intended to continue with Policy No. 500-6111834 vide her letter dated 19.11.2010. The complaint was also not maintainable as there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Op. The OP had received a complaint on 9.9.2010 with regard to aforesaid policies alleging mis-selling and request for cancellation. The OP carried out a detailed investigation wherein it was found that there was no mis-selling of the policies. The policies were issued as per the terms and conditions and information made available by the complainant in the proposal form and moreover, vide letter dated 19.10.2010, she had agreed to continue with Policy No. 500-6111834, therefore, policies cannot be cancelled but can be surrendered at any point, subject to policy terms and conditions and that the complainant was not a consumer, therefore, no locus standi to file the complaint. On merits, the same averments with regard to filling up the proposal form, issuance of the policies and request for cancellation was received, investigated and replied and it was not made within a “Free Look Period” of 15 days, therefore, not accepted. It was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.

5.                In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, letter Ex. C-2, policy No. 5006111834 Ex. C-3, letters Exs. C-4 to 6, application Ex. C-7, letter Ex. C-8, policy No. 500-61111271 Ex. C-9, affidavit of Satnam Kaur Ex. C-10. On the other hand, the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sameer Bhatnagar Ex. R-1, delivery reports Exs. R-2 & 3, letter Ex. R-4, premium receipt Ex. R-5, policy specification Ex. R-6, fund transmission notice Ex. R-7, policy bond Ex. R-8, proposal form Ex. R-9, benefit illustration Ex. R-10, cheque Ex. R-11, letters Exs. R-12 to 14, premium receipt Ex. R-15, policy specification Ex. R-16, fund transaction notice Ex. R-17, policy bond Ex. R-18, proposal for Ex. R-19, benefit illustration Ex. R-20, medical report Ex. R-21, pan card copy Ex. R-22, a/c statements Exs. R-23 & 24, voter card Ex. R-25, cheque Ex. R-26, letters Exs. R-27 to Ex. R-30.

6.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                It was contended by the counsel for the complainant that she had applied for one policy but was given two policies. She had filled in two proposal forms, issued two cheques, received two policies. Lateron also asked to continue with one policy. Therefore, the plea so taken by the complainant is not acceptable on the basis of record itself.

9.                It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that no doubt that two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834 were issued by the Ops and it is also an admitted fact that there was 15 days free look period and option was with the complainant to cancel those policies within that stipulated period. Certainly, as per the terms and conditions of the policy in case he terms and conditions of the policies were not acceptable to the complainant, she had a right to cancel it within the free look period of 15 days. The counsel for the complainant says that she had made a request on 6.9.2010 to cancel the policy. It is an admitted fact that the policy was delivered to one Satnam Kaur on 23.8.2010 as per the document relied upon by the Op Ex. R-2. By this documents, the date of delivery of the policies is 23.8.2010 and received by Satnam , # 169 G, Pratap Nagar, Patiala whereas the address of the complainant is same as per the address given in the complaint but certainly Satnam is not a complainant. As alleged by the complainant, she is her neighbourer and she has filed one affidavit Ex. C-1, who has stated that in the month of August, 2010, a courier boy from Blue Dart came to her house but the complainant was Out of Station, therefore, she had received the letter and delivered to the complainant after 3-4 days. In case it is taken as 3 days then the date of delivery to the complainant is 26.8.2010. In case we go through the letter Ex. C-3 issued by the Ops in the name of the complainant that is Welcome letter in which it was offered that in case the policy is not to your satisfaction, you can withdraw your policy with a free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. Therefore, 15 days are from the date of receipt of the policy. In case the policy was received by the complainant after 3 days from Satnam Kaur, who had received on 23.8.2010 and in that way, she had received the policy document on 26.8.2010. Although one letter dated 6.9.2010 has been placed on the record by the counsel for the complainant but it is not attached with any postal receipt or any other receipt. It is not clear what was the mode of sending this letter to the Op, therefore, this letter cannot be relied upon to say that the letter regarding cancellation of policy was sent by the complainant to the OP on 6.9.2010. However, the letter issued by the Ops Ex. C-4 makes it clear that they would like to draw your attention to their response dated 9.11.2010 to address to your concern and vide letter dated 9.11.2010, it was referred that your complaint was received on 9.9.2010 whereas as per Blue Dart Courier receipt, it was delivered on 23.8.2010, therefore, your cancellation request was received beyond the period of 15 days, therefore, it cannot be considered. However, in case the date of receipt of the policy to the complainant is taken as 26.8.2010 then the complaint dated 9.9.2010 regarding cancellation of the policy is correct. It is pertinent to mention here that vide letter dated 19.11.2010 Ex. C-7, she had requested to the Ops that she had received two policies bearing Nos. 500-6111271 and 500-6111834, now she had unable to continue with both the policies, therefore, request was made to cancel policy No. 500-6111271 and that she will continue with the other policy, therefore, out of the two policies, the case of the complainant can be considered only with regard to one policy bearing No. 500-6111271 because with regard to the second policy, she vide letter dated 19.11.2010 had intimated to the Ops to continue their policy. Therefore, the Company was not under any obligation to cancel that policy.

9.                Now we have to see whether the request of the complainant to cancel the policy No. 500-6111271 was within the time? In case the date is taken from the date of receipt of the policy document by the complainant then it cannot be taken as 23.8.2010 because on that day, it was received by one Satnam, who has filed her affidavit stating that policy document was received by her when the complainant was away from the house and was out of station and delivered the same to the complainant after 3-4 days. No contrary evidence has been produced on the record by the Ops. Certainly, the complaint was received by the Ops on 9.9.2010 as per their own document Ex. C-5, therefore, 15 days are to be counted from 26.8.2010. In case 15 days are counted from that date then the request for cancellation was received within 15 days and the Ops were required to cancel the policies but they did not consider the request of the complainant because they took the date of receipt of the policies as 23.8.2010 without discussing that the policy document was not received by the complainant in person. Smt. Satnam, who had received the document has filed her affidavit stating that she had received the policy documents on behalf of the complainant and delivered her after 3-4 days and there is no rebuttal to this evidence produced by the Ops. Therefore, according to the terms and conditions, the complainant had lodged cancellation of the policies within a period of 15 days lateron she gave in writing vide letter dated 19.11.2010 that she wants to cancel only policy No. 500-6111271 and would like to continue the other policy No. 500-6111834. Therefore, the District Forum should have partly allowed the complaint accepting the cancellation of one policy but without discussing the entire evidence on the record in detail, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the order so passed by the learned District Forum is not based upon on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record.

10.              In view of the above, we accept the appeal. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The respondents/opposite parties are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- received against policy No. 500-6111271 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt till payment. They are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which proceedings under Section 27 of the CP Act shall be initiated against them. 

11.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

March            19, 2015.                                                       (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member