Harbans Singh Dadyala, aged about 74 years, resident of House No.2251, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.  

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.       Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. office One Indiabulls Centre Tower 1, 15 and 16th floor, Jupiter Mill compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013, through its Manager/Authorised representative.

2]       Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.249-250, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorised Representative

              ....Respondents

Harbans Singh Dadyala, aged about 74 years, resident of House No.2251, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.       Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, Regd. office One Indiabulls Centre Tower 1, 15 and 16th floor, Jupiter Mill compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013, through its Manager/Authorised representative.

2]       Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.249-250, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg Chandigarh, through its Manager/Authorised Representative.

              ....Respondents

Appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:           Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for the appellant.

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        By this common order we propose to dispose of the two connected appeals mentioned above, in which the identical questions of law and fact are involved, filed by the appellants/complainants, against the common order dated 21.3.2012 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which separate complaints filed by him against the  Opposite Parties were dismissed.

2.                 The facts are taken from Consumer Complaint Case No.647 of 2011 (Appeal No. 146 of 2012) – Harbans Singh Dadyala vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.’.

3.                           The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant, being allured by the false assurances of the representative of the Opposite Parties/Insurance Company about getting high profits, invested Rs.50,000/- in Fixed Deposit Scheme. It was stated that the representative of the Opposite Parties, took his signatures on the blank form, which he filled later on, at his own, as per his suitability, which was totally in contravention to the guidelines issued by Insurance Regulatory Authority of India (IRDA). It was further stated that wrong date of birth of the life insured was recorded, in the proposal form, the details of employer and details of employment were left blank, the annual income of the complainant and her daughter was mentioned as Rs.4.5 lacs and Rs.6 lacs respectively, but no evidence was collected or placed with the form. Neither the column of income proof was filled nor any proof of income was procured. Therefore, the agent of   Opposite Parties  filled the proposal form according to his own convenience to get higher commission and thereby violated the KYC norms of IRDA.  It was further stated that when the complainant, received Policy Document Annexure C-2, he was shocked to read the terms & conditions thereof, as these were never explained to him earlier.  He immediately wrote a letter to  the Opposite Parties, on 5.5.2011, sought cancellation of policy and refund of amount, which they did not reply, and, as such, the reminders dated 16.5.2011 & 19.5.2011 were sent.  Ultimately, the   Opposite Parties, replied vide letter dated 26.5.2011, that the policy could not be cancelled, since the free look period of 15 days had already lapsed.   It was further stated that  the Opposite Parties, as was required, in pursuance of Circular dated 1.1.2008 (Ann.C-7), never took signatures of the complainant on Table-A (list of charges paid and payable by a policy holder) and on Table B (an illustration of guaranteed benefits and non-guaranteed benefits). Therefore, they could not take benefit of free look period w.e.f. the date of issuance of policy. Hence, there was deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, and they also indulged in unfair trade practice.   Hence this complaint was filed. 

4.                   Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply, wherein, it was denied that the Opposite Parties ever allured the complainant by giving false promises/assurances.  It was stated that prior to acceptance of the proposal, the contents of proposal/application, addendum forms, were read and explained to the Life Assured & the Complainant, who in acceptance thereof, signed the declarations.  It was further stated that the sales literature and necessary guidance also provided & duly explained to the complainant.  The complainant himself chose a policy of 20 years, with an annual premium of Rs.50,000/-.   It was further stated that the complainant himself did not avail of the Free Look Option, thereby demonstrating that he accepted the terms & conditions of the policy contract.  It was further denied that the signatures of the Life Assured/complainant were taken on blank forms.  It was further stated that since the annual premium was Rs.50,000/-, thus, there was no mandatory criteria to take the income proof of the proposer.  Moreover, copy of pass book of saving bank account of the complainant, was retained by the   Opposite Parties/  Insurance Company, before the issuance of policy in question.  It was further stated that the policy was Bachat Endowment Policy, a non-unit linked policy, wherein, the benefits were already disclosed in the Policy Terms & Conditions and the same were also mentioned in the Policy Benefit Provisions of the Policy Terms & Conditions. All other allegations, made in the complaint were denied.  It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency in rendering service nor indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of   Opposite Parties.

5.                           The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

6.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum, vide common order dated 21.3.2012, dismissed both the complaints, as stated, in the opening para of this order

7.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeals, have been filed, by the appellants/complainants, against the common order, referred to above.

8.                           We have heard the arguments of the Counsel for the appellants/complainants, and have perused the record, to decide whether these appeals should be admitted for regular hearing

9.                           The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that the complainant/appellant took the policy, in question, from the Opposite Parties, the proposal form whereof was filled by them, as per their own suitability, in breach of the IRDA norms. It was further submitted that when the complainant/appellant received the policy in question, he was shocked to know that the terms and conditions mentioned therein, were contrary to what was projected to him. Thus, the complainant sought cancellation of the policy, and refund thereof. But the Opposite Parties, rejected the same, on the ground, that the free look period of 15 days had lapsed. It was further submitted  that as per IRDA instructions Annexure C-7 placed, on record, the Opposite Parties, were bound to get signatures of the policy holder on Table-A (list of charges paid and payable by a policy holder) and on Table B (an illustration of guaranteed benefits and non-guaranteed benefits) but they did not do so. It was further submitted that, thus, they could not take benefit of free look period w.e.f. the date of issuance of policy, and the period of free look period, if any, should have been counted from 26.5.2011, i.e. when the   Opposite Parties, replied to his request to cancel the policy.  

10.                       We do not find any merit, in the contentions of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, because from the perusal of Policy document
Annexure C-2, it is apparent that the policy, in question, was a Bachat Endwoment Policy and not a unit linked policy. Admittedly, the policy was issued on 31.1.2011  in one case and in the other case on 22.12.2010. The complainant sought cancellation of the policy in question on 5.5.2011, which was beyond the prescribed period of 15 days. Hence, the complainant himself failed to exercise the option of cancellation within the free look period of 15 days. The complainant wrongly placed reliance on Annexures C-7 and C-12, which are only applicable to Unit Linked Policy, and not to the policy in question, being a non-unit linked policy i.e. Bachat Endwoment Policy. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, that the Opposite Parties, were not at fault, by rejecting the request of the complainant, for the cancellation of policy. Hence, there was no deficiency, on the part of the  Opposite Parties, and the District Forum had rightly dismissed the complaint after dealing with each and every aspect of the case, and the same needs no interference..

11.                       In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that both the appeals bearing No.146 of 2012 titled as Harbans Singh Dadyala Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr and 147 of 2012 titled as Harbans Singh Dadyala Vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr have no merit. Hence the same are dismissed in limine, and the District Forum order is upheld.

12.             The parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

13.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.