Sri Saroj Mohon Ghosh,

s/o. late Krishna Dhan Ghosh,

residing at 27/1, Baksara Road,

P.O. Baksara, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711110.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Chief Operating Officer,

BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

Having its office at One India Bulls Centre,

148, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphin Stone Road,

Mumbai – 400013. -----------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Sri Saroj Mohan Ghosh, being a senior citizen, by filing a

petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund only Rs. 30,000/- being insurance premium amount and to close the insurance  policy in question along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant, on being influenced by one,

Sudipta Mazumdar, appeared as agent of the O.P. submitted one application/ proposal form i.e., for purchasing an insurance policy called BSLI Vision Plan on 18-01-2012 vide Annexure proposal form. The said agent assured him that he had to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- for once only and after three years he would get back his money with 11% p.a. interest as well as he and his wife would also get medical benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- each coupled with life insurance of his wife up to 100 years. Complainant paid the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as one time premium through a cheque drawn on UBI, Howrah Branch. As  senior citizens, both the complainant and his wife did not read the contents of the proposal form while putting the signatures.  Thereafter, he got the policy document with the commencement  date as 24-01-2012 being no. 005335002, in the month of  February, 2012. But on going through the policy document, he came to know that he is required to pay the annual premium of Rs. 30,000/- for 12 years and lock in period of the policy is three years and the complainant is bound to pay annually Rs. 30,000/- for three years which is really beyond the capability of the complainant. Immediately, he wrote a letter to the O.P. on 12-02-2012 which was received by them on 21-02-2012 vide annexure xerox  copy of the said letter, with a request to refund his deposit of Rs. 30,000/-. But O.P. over phone told him that as the claim period for such refund was over, the refund of Rs. 30,000/- cannot be made available to him. Finding no other alternative, alleging deficiency in service against O.P., complainant filed this instant petition praying for aforesaid reliefs.

3.                  Notices were served. O.p. appeared and filed written version, evidence on

affidavit and BNA.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            Denying and disputing  

all material facts, O.P. has specifically pointed out that as complainant did not submit the prayer for cancellation within the free-look period of 15 years, the refund cannot be effected, and it has been done as per Clause 6 (2 ) of the IRDA Regulations, 2002. It is also admitted by the O.P. that complainant’s letter dated 12-02-2012 was received by them on 21-02-2012 vide para 10 ( iv ). Here we want to pose for a little, the provision is that after receipt of the policy document within 15 days i.e., free-look period, complainant was required to send the prayer for cancellation of the said policy. Accordingly, policy document dated 24-01-2012 must have reached the complainant earliest by 01/02 or 02/02 of 2012. And the complainant wrote the letter on 12-02-2012 i.e., within 15 days of free- look period. Further O.P. has also stated that after receiving letter dated 12-02-2012 on 21-02-2012 i.e., after 9 days  from the complainant, O.P. sent a letter dated 20-03-2012 asking for supply of some documents like valid signature proof duly self and bank attested, consent letter, valid photo ID duly self and branch attested vide Annexure 3. But whether complainant received the same, O.P. has not filed any document to that effect.  And O.P. asked for all those documents from the complainant  in order to enable them to make a correct investigation, that means after receiving the complainant’s request letter dated 12-02-2012 on 21-02-2012, O.P. even if sent any letter, that was after a lapse of long one month. And we consider  that all those documents must be lying with the O.P.  as the complainant while submitting proposal form must have annexed all these documents because without these documents, a proposal form is not considered to be a complete-one. Accordingly, we find all the pleas taken by the O.P. are not valid ones. And the agents are the face of the company. A person gets interested to buy an insurance policy being influenced and assured by the agents. And the agents act on behalf of the principal. For every misleading act of the agent, principal is liable. People buy insurance policies to be relieved of unforeseen incidents but O.Ps. this kind of activity increases the tension of the people and compels them to spend sleepless nights. O.P. should have considered the very old age of the complainant and his wife. O.P has made them helpless at this age, which should never be allowed to be perpetuated. O.P. has harassed the complainant by way of adopting unfair trade practice. O.P. has failed to discharge their part of duty towards the complainant.  This is nothing but gross negligence on their  part. Accordingly, we find O.P. is deficient in providing service to the complainant. So, the case succeeds on merit.     

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                                O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  127 of 2012 ( HDF 127 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.P. 

      That the  O.P. is  jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant.

      That the complainant do get an award  of  Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs from the O.P.

      That the o.p. is further directed to pay the entire decreetal  amount of Rs. 43,000/- to the  complainant within one month from the date of this order i.e., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

      That  the O.P. is also directed to cancel the policy being no. 005335002 with immediate effect.            

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )               

 Member,                                     Member,                               

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.