PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he had opted for Vision Plan Insurance Policy bearing No.005226550 and paid premium of Rs.50,000/-.  The O.P. issued Receipt No.23853359 dated 31^st July, 2011.  It was for five years starting from 1^st August, 2011 to 1^st August, 2016. The insured amount is Rs.5 Lakhs. The O.P. was under obligation to send insurance policy to the complainant within fifteen days from the date of premium payment.  As the original insurance policy was not received, the complainant wrote letter dated 22^nd September, 2011 informing that he had not received the policy.  There was no response from the opponent. Therefore, the complainant sent other letter dated 30^th September, 2011 informing the O.P. either to send the policy document or to cancel the policy and refund the premium amount.  The O.P. sent letter dated 25^th October, 2011 forcing the complainant to sign undertaking that the original policy is lost by the complainant. The original policy was not received by the complainant therefore he refused to sign the false undertaking.  The complainant replied to the letter on 28^th October, 2011 informing that he can not sign false undertaking.  The complainant had a right of free look for fifteen days from the receipt of the policy.  Therefore, the O.P. can not compel the complainant to sign false undertaking.  The O.P. refused to issue duplicate policy unless false undertaking is given by the complainant.  Thus, there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the O.P. to refund the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest.  He has also prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.20,000/-.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is admitted that the complainant applied for policy and paid premium amount. It is submitted that policy bearing No. 005226550, dated 31^st July, 2011 was issued.  It was received by the complainant on 8^th August, 2011.  It was received by one Mr.Shevantilal at the address of the complainant.  Blue Dart issued delivery status.  Vide letter dated 15^th November, 2011, the complainant was informed that the document was delivered at the address of the complainant.  While issuing duplicate copy, it is necessary to follow the procedure.  The complainant approached the Insurance Ombudsman.  The O.P. duly replied the letter dated 23^rd April, 2012 sent by the office of the Insurance Ombudsman and denied the remarks of the Ombudsman with regard to the forgery of delivery.  The O.P. is willing to issue duplicate policy document after following due procedure. The complainant has received the policy document and had enjoyed the benefits of the insurance cover.   The other contentions of the complaint are denied.  Free look period can not be given twice.  The O.P. is willing to issue duplicate policy without free look period, subject to fulfillment of necessary requirements.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :-  There is no dispute that the complainant applied for insurance policy and paid premium amount. The O.P. issued receipt of premium amount.  According to the O.P., policy document was issued on 31^st July, 2011 and it was received by one Mr.Shevantilal on 8^th August, 2011.  The O.P. has produced copy of certificate issued by Blue Dart dated 29^th March, 2012 showing that consignment was received by Shevantilal on 8^th August, 2011. The O.P. has not produced the acknowledgement of the complainant about the delivery of original policy document.  Mere filing of certificate is not sufficient to show the actual delivery.  Moreover, the O.P. has not filed affidavit of the person who delivered the consignment to the complainant.  Admittedly, the person who filed the affidavit of evidence has no personal knowledge about the actual delivery to the complainant. According to the complainant, Shevantilal was not alive at the relevant time as he died before fourteen years.  According to the complainant, as he did not receive original policy document,. Immediately he wrote letter to the O.P. on 22^nd September, 2011.  But, there was no response. Admittedly, complaint was lodged with the Insurance Ombudsman.   Copy of the finding of Insurance Ombudsman is produced on record.  The Insurance Ombudsman observed that the company has submitted proof of delivery of policy in which signature seems to be forged.  On this background, it was necessary for the O.P. to produce sufficient proof to show the delivery of policy document to the complainant.  Except filing of copy of certificate, there is no proof showing the actual delivery of policy document to the complainant.  Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record showing the delivery of policy document to the complainant.  As per law, the complainant has a right of free look within fifteen days from the receipt of the policy.  The O.P. can not restrain the complainant from exercising his right of free look. The complainant has produced letter issued by the O.P. alongwith the undertaking form.  Under this form, the O.P. wants undertaking from the complainant that he lost the original policy document.  When the document was not received by the complainant, there is no question of giving such false undertaking.  Thus, there is apparent deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.  On this background, the complainant is entitled for the refund of entire premium amount paid by him with interest.

5)                The opponent in written notes of argument has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited –Versus Munimahesh Patel.  In that judgment, there were allegations of fraud and forgery and therefore detailed investigation was required.  In the instant complaint before us, the dispute is about delivery of original policy document.  There are no allegations of fraud. Therefore, the abovecited judgment is not applicable. Thus, the original policy document was not delivered to the complainant therefore he could not exercise his right of free look.  There is apparent deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.  Therefore, the O.P. is liable to refund the entire premium amount with interest to the complainant.  In spite of several requests, the O.P. failed to deliver original policy document thereby the complainant suffered from mental agony.  Therefore, the complaiantn is entitled for compensation.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.30,000/-. We think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for the cost of this proceeding Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.
2. The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment i.e. 31^st July, 2011 till its actual realization.
3. The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceeding.
4. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 1^st September, 2014