Jarnail Singh s/o Late Mela Singh, R/o H.No.2785, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1.DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, 4^th

2.DLF City Phase-3, Gurgaon (Haryana), Mr.Pawan Dhamija, through its Managing Director and CEO Mr.Pawan Dhamija.

3.DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 05, Top Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh, through its Assistant Sales Manager Mr.Deepak Sharma.

4.DLF Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 05, Top Floor, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh, through its Mr.Indresh Shukla Code SEO 0005845.

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

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.             However, on receipt of the Policy document, it revealed that the Opposite Parties had mentioned/filled the wrong particulars of the nominee, and the tenure of the same (Policy) was also wrongly mentioned as 20 years, instead of 5 years, as assured by them. 

3.           

4.           

5.            

6.           

7.            

8.           

9.            

10.         Opposite Party No.2. As is evident from Annexure -6, at page 23 of the District Forum file, that for the first time, the Opposite Parties received letter dated 06.06.2012, on 14.06.2012, vide which, request by the complainant was made for cancellation of the Policy, in question. Since, this request had been made by the complainant, much beyond the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policy, the Opposite Parties were right, in not accepting the same. By not accepting the request of the complainant, for cancellation of the Policy, which was received much beyond the free-look-period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the Policy document, for cancellation of the same (Policy),the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed.

11.            

12.             

13.             In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            

15.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.             The file be consigned to Record Room, after due 

Pronounced.

September 6, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Rg