R.K. AGRAWAL, J., PRESIDENT

1. The present Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. A/1120/2016, A/1121/2016, A/1122/2016 and A/1123/2016, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals filed by the Complainants/Appellants and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum by which the Complaints were dismissed.

    

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Revision Petitions are similar except for minor variation in the dates, these Revision Petitions are disposed off through this common Order.However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2135 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Complaint No. CC/15/146.

    

3. < >uccinctly put, the material facts, giving rise to filing of the Complaint are that Babulal Das (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant/Petitioner) approached the Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Insurance Company) to purchase single premium Fixed Deposit Policy and obtained two separate Policies, Policy Nos. 10078550 on 03.12.2013 and Policy No. 10158954 on 14.08.2014 by paying premium of ₹61,854/- towards each Policy.  It is the say of the Complainant / Petitioner that although he had applied for single premium Fixed Deposit Policies yet the Respondent Insurance Company issued him Regular Traditional Premium Policies.  He approached the Respondent Insurance Company and requested to rectify the anomalies, but in vain.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company, a Complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) seeking refund of his deposited amount alongwith compensation and litigation costs.

   The Respondent Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing written statement before the District Forum in which it was submitted that the Complainant is an educated person and he had voluntarily applied for the issued Insurance Policies.As per guidelines of IRDA, he was given 15 days free look period to go through the terms and conditions of the Policies and in case of disagreement, he had the right to cancel the Policies, but the Complainant did not cancel the same.Therefore, the contract was legally concluded.After 11 months of issuance of Policies, the Complainant made a Complaint on 24.03.2015 for which certain documents were asked from the Complainant but he did not provide the same. The Complainant has enjoyed the life risk cover for a certain period, therefore, the prayer of the Complainant to get the full premium amount back cannot be accepted as the same would cause loss to the Insurance Company.It was also submitted that the contract of insurance is an important document and they are performing its part of providing service and covering the risk of the life of the Complainant from the date of commencement of the Policy and as such, the Complainant is estopped from challenging the contract at a belated stage.It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

    

4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the Complaint in following terms:-

   “Our Supreme Court as well as our National Commission opined that the policy document is binding on both the parties and the policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. In the instant case it is the case of the petitioner that he deposited the amount in the fixed deposit scheme but save and except his statement in the complaint petition there is no document in support of his case that he deposited the amount for the purpose of fixed deposit scheme and not for getting the life insurance policy as is the case of the O.P. Further, after the commencement of the policy on the date on which the first premium was paid, the O.P. sent the letter of thanks along with policy documents, but in spite of getting the  policy documents the petitioner made on objection to the same or praying for cancellation of the same whether the free look period for 15 days and now in the compliant petition also the petitioner made  vague statement as to on which date he paid the money and what was the basis of his payment and he has not filed any document or made no statement as to how he paid money either by cash or by cheque and he has not filed the statement of account of his bank wherefrom it could have been known as to for what purpose he paid the money whether for FD or for insurance policy and what was the exact amount paid on which date. Simply in pare 4 of his case he stated that he invested a total sum of Rs.123708/- in two fixed deposit policy on two separate occasions through bank transfer from his account of Indusind Bank as could be noticed form the bank Statement of the petitioner even if the transactions took place on different dates with long gap and also he did not file any such bank statement in support of his case wherefrom it could be seen as to for what purpose he paid the money. Further in case of a fraud as alleged by petitioner this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

    

   In view of above discussion and findings this Forum finds that the petitioner miserably failed to prove his cas that he made payment for two fixed deposit scheme and Ops illegally issued insurance scheme.  In the result the application fails.”

    

5. Being aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the Complainants preferred appeals before the State Commission.The State Commission after hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the Appeals by observing as under:-

   “It is though claimed by the Appellants that, on receipt of the policy documents, they immediately rushed to the office of the Respondents and asked them to rectify the anomalies, no documentary proof is forthcoming before us to support such contention.

    

   Above all, even if we assume that such request was made verbally, it is hardly believable that despite their bitter experience in respect of Policy No. 10078550, stood in the name of Sri Babulal Das (date of commencement – 03-12-2013), they did not learn any lesson from it, but made similar blunder not once or twice, but 6 times in a row till 14-08-2014, when the last policy bearing no. 10158954 was made by said Sri Babulal Das.

    

   It is also noteworthy that Appellants have not furnished copies of their Income Tax returns.  Therefore, we are unable to figure out if their annual income, as mentioned in the proposal forms, was indeed wrong or not. Similarly, it appears from the proposal forms that occupation of Ms Saswati Dey nee Das, Ms Shrabanti Das and Ms Soma Das was mentioned as service, service and self-employed, respectively; whereas, in the petition of complaints, their occupation is mentioned as house-wife.  Despite this, we have not come across any specific averment in any of the petition of complaints that the names of companies/firm, as mentioned in the proposal forms, were all manufactured.

    

   Overall, it is noticed that, Appellants’ have not put forth anything positive to aid their cause.  In absence of tangible proof to suggest otherwise, we cannot hold the Respondents guilty of deficiency in service.

    

   In the light of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the impugned orders.

    

   The Appeal, thus, fails.”

    

6. Aggrieved by this Order, the Complainants/Revision Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.

    

7. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent Insurance Company terminated the Policies issued in favour of the Complainants and offered to refund part of the premium amount against the total premium paid by the Petitioner, which was not accepted by the Petitioners/Complainants.It was also submitted that one Suranjit Das – Relationship Manager of the Respondent Insurance Company offered to refund ₹60,000/- in Policy No. 10158954 and ₹1,20,000/- in respect of Policy No. 10078550 as per calculation sheet made by him in his handwriting.When the Petitioner/Complainant asked him to issue an official communication indicating the said offered amount, he did not issue any official communication to that effect.He prayed that the Respondent Insurance Company be directed to refund the full premium amount paid by the Petitioner or in alternative issue a one-time premium investment payment policy after adjusting the full premium amount lying with the Respondent Insurance Company.

1. Per Contra, Mr. Dipankar Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Insurance Company submitted that as per guidelines of IRDA, the Complainant/Petitioner was given 15 days free look period to go through the terms and conditions of the Policies and in case of disagreement, he had the right to cancel the Policies, but the Complainant did not cancel the same.  It was further submitted that as per clauses in the Policy, a period of 30 days commencing from the date on which the Regular Premium was due defined as the ‘Grace Period’.  Similarly a period of two years commencing from the date of the first unpaid Regular Premium is defined as the Revival Period.  In respect of Policy No. 10078550, the second premium became due and payable on 03.12.2014 and the same was paid by the Petitioner on 27.12.2014 within Grace Period and he also purchased another Policy No. 10158954 on 14.08.2014, which proves that the Petitioner/Complainant was fully satisfied with the Policy otherwise he would have neither renewed the Policy by paying premium for second year nor purchased another Policy.  It was further submitted that as per terms of the Policies, after expiry of Revival Period, the Policies are terminated and as per Clauses 4(b)(i)(4)(i) and 4(b)(i)(4)(ii), the Policy Holder is entitled to receive the following amounts in case of non-revival of Policy :-

   i)        30% of the Regular Premiums received after deducting applicable taxes and extra premium, if any, if Regular Premium for the first policy year only has been received.

   ii)       60% of the Regular Premium received after deducting applicable taxes and extra premium, if any, if Regular Premium for at least two (2) Policy Years has been received.

2. Accordingly, after expiry of Revival Period, the Policies of the Petitioner were terminated and following amount was refunded by way of cheques to the Petitioner/Complainant but the Petitioner/Complainant did not encash the cheques:-

1. He submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled for more than the above-mentioned refundable amount as per terms of the Policies and the alleged handwritten calculation sheet mentioned by the Petitioner is not at all authentic and they have no knowledge about the said handwritten note.He supported the

1. We have heard Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. Dipankar Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Insurance Company and given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by them.

    

2. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners/Complainants were provided 15 days free-look period to go through the Policies and in case of disagreement with the terms and conditions of the Policies the option was available with the Petitioner/Complainant to cancel the Policy, but the Petitioner did not cancel the same, meaning thereby that they were fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policies.Rather, the Petitioner after 9 months of issuance of first Policy, purchased another Policy No. 10158954 on 14.08.2014 and renewed the first Policy No. 10078550 by paying renewal premium on 27.12.2014, which also proves that he was fully satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policies.  It is also not in dispute that before the termination of the Policies, the Petitioners enjoyed the Life Risk coverage and in case of any mishap, the Respondent Insurance Company was burdened with the liability to compensate the beneficiaries.  It is a settled principle of law that the Policy bond is a concluded contract and insured and insurer are bound by the terms and conditions of the Policy.  As per terms of the Policy, after expiry of Revival Period, the Respondent Insurance Company terminated the Policies and refunded the amount in terms of the Policies by way of cheques to the Complainants/Petitioners, which undisputedly the Petitioners/Complainants did not choose to encash.  Therefore, no Deficiency in Service can be fastened on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company.

    

3. In view of above discussions, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Orders passed by the Fora below warranting our interference in Revisional Jurisdiction.  However, in the interest of justice, we direct the Respondent Insurance Company to issue fresh cheques of the refundable amount as per terms of the Policies to the Petitioners/Complainants after verifying the non-encashment of earlier cheques issued to the Petitioners, within four weeks from today. 

    

4. The Revision Petitions stand disposed off in above terms.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.