IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /80/2010.

 Date of Filing: 80/2010.                                                                                                      Date of Final Order: 15.06.2016.

Complainant: Aminul Haque Biswas, C/O Abdul Kader Biswas, Vill&P.O. Sarangpur, P.S. Domkal,

                        Dist. Murshidabad.    

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Memari Branch,

                               Memari, Dist. Burdwan.

                           2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, Berhampore Br.

                               Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.           

                       Present:  Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya   ………………….President.                                 

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.

 The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of policy amount of Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.70,000/- for compensation.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a Policy of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd of No. 0061771645 for the sum of Rs.50, 000/- and the policy Certificate was issued within statutory period and within free look period the complainant prayed for returning of invested amount of Rs.50, 000/- as his mother was going to be admitted in the hospital at Vellore. In spite of receiving notice and also on several approach of the complainant the OP No.1 did not make any initiative for payment and lastly on 01.06.10 the OP refused to make payment. Then, complainant filed this case. Hence, the instant complaint case.

The written version filed by the OP-Insurance Co. , in brief, is that the OP has denied the allegation of the complainant. The complainant has violated the rules and regulations of the policy. He filed application beyond free look period and as such the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.

Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised to dispose of the case.

                                        Points for decision.

1.      Whether the complaint is maintainable as per law and fact?

2.      Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the present case?

3.      Whether the petition is barred by law of limitation?

4.      Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

5.      To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?  

                                                         Decision with Reasons

The complainant is praying for refund of Rs.50, 000/- plus Rs.70, 000/- as compensation.    

            The complainant’s case is that the complainant prayed for return of the policy amount within free look period but the OP has refused to pay the same and harassed.

            On the other hand, the OP has denied the same and the OP’s specific case is that the complainant applied for return of policy premium invested beyond free look period violating the mandatory provision of the policy and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit and the relevant documents in support of his case and has also called for the original policy of the complainant bearing the Policy No. 0061771645 of Memari Branch, Free look policy original from the OP by applying before this Forum on 30.11.11

            The prayer for call for above document being allowed the OP furnished the same before this Forum in Original.

            From the original duplicate bond in favour of the complainant it is clear that the policy commencement dt is 28.09.2007 and free look period is fifteen days.

            Further, from the document filed by the complainant addressing to OP-Insurance Co. it is clear that the complainant applied on 15.10.2007 for return of the invested amount of Rs.50, 000/- enclosing Xerox copy of cheque amounting to Rs.50,000/- in favour of the OP Insurance Co.

            It is clear that the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy beyond free look period which cannot be entertained in any circumstances.

            There is no iota of evidence on the part of the complainant that he applied for cancellation as well as for return of invested amount within free look period.

            Also, there is no material on the part of the complainant that irrespective of application beyond free look period he is entitled to get back the invested amount of Rs.50,000/-.

            Considering the above discussions we can safely conclude that the complainant applied for cancellation of the policy as well as return of invested amount beyond free l00k period which is the mandatory condition of the policy and for that there is no scope to get any relief by the complainant from the OP-Insurance Co and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Insurance Co.

            On the basis of the above discussions we find that all the points are disposed of against the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence,

                                                                     Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 80/2010 be and the same is hereby dismissed as there is no merit in this case.

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

        Member                                           Member                                                             President