Date of Filing : 30/11/2015
Order No. 18 dt. 28/02/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant decided to take a life insurance policy and visited the ING Vysya Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch sometime in the month of Feb. 2013. The complainant decided to invest a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as a single premium, but the Branch Manager pressurized the complainant to invest a single premium at least Rs.8 lakhs as the same would help them in attaining the target of investment. The complainant thereafter had to create an overdraft account in Kotak Mahindra Bank for arranging the additional fund. The complainant thereafter went out of Kolkata and came back to his residence on 27.3.13 and he was informed that the policy document was sent at his address and on opening the policy document he found that o.ps. sold a regularly premium of Rs.8 lakhs. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant went to o.p. no.1 for cancellation of the policy, but he was informed that since the policy document was received during the absence of the complainant, the complainant prayed for cancellation of policy on 29.3.13, but the same was denied by o.p. no.1 by informing the complainant that the documents were delivered at the address of the complainant on 14.3.13 and free look period ended on 29.3.13, therefore since the complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period, the o.ps. denied to cancel the policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case stating inter alia that the complainant exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within the free look period, but o.p. no.1 deliberately failed to accept the option of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.8 lakhs as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 filed a petition stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the same was not filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of the cause of action and the complainant did not file any petition u/s 24 A of the C.P. Act for condonation of delay. The o.p. nos.1 and 2 further stated that it is an established position of law by virtue of different decisions by Hon’ble Apex Court of India as well as Hon’ble National Commission that any complaint petition has to be filed within 2 years from the date of accrual of cause of action and any subsequent correspondence cannot extend the period of limitation by any means. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that the case is barred by limitation and the same is to be dismissed in limini.
The o.p. no.3 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant is a literate and learned man who is said to have visited the branch for buying a life insurance policy suo moto and the dealing officers explained the pros and cons of various policies and on being satisfied the complainant opted to apply for the policy in question. The payment was made by the complainant unconditionally. Retrieval of the application forms will further establish the fact that the complainant read and understood the terms and conditions of the policy opted for before putting his signature on the said application form. The complainant himself admitted that he did not mention the actual reason for free look cancellation and has suppressed the said fact. The complainant had earlier approached of the appellate bodies including the Apex Grievance Redressal Officers of both the bank as well as insurance company. All such bodies have observed no merits on the allegation so made and accordingly turned down the issue. The complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period and thereby the question of cancellation of the policy does not arise. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the policy with o.ps.?
- Whether during the free look period the complainant exercised his option for cancellation of the policy?
- Whether the complainant filed this case within 2 years from the accrual of cause of action?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant decided to take a life insurance policy and visited the ING Vysya Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch sometime in the month of Feb. 2013. The complainant decided to invest a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as a single premium, but the Branch Manager pressurized the complainant to invest a single premium at least Rs.8 lakhs as the same would help them in attaining the target of investment. The complainant thereafter had to create an overdraft account in Kotak Mahindra Bank for arranging the additional fund. The complainant thereafter went out of Kolkata and came back to his residence on 27.3.13 and he was informed that the policy document was sent at his address and on opening the policy document he found that o.ps. sold a regularly premium of Rs.8 lakhs. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant went to o.p. no.1 for cancellation of the policy, but he was informed that since the policy document was received during the absence of the complainant, the complainant prayed for cancellation of policy on 29.3.13, but the same was denied by o.p. no.1 by informing the complainant that the documents were delivered at the address of the complainant on 14.3.13 and free look period ended on 29.3.13, therefore since the complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period, the o.ps. denied to cancel the policy. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case stating inter alia that the complainant exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within the free look period, but o.p. no.1 deliberately failed to accept the option of the complainant for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.8 lakhs as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that the complainant is a literate and learned man who is said to have visited the branch for buying a life insurance policy suo moto and the dealing officers explained the pros and cons of various policies and on being satisfied the complainant opted to apply for the policy in question. The payment was made by the complainant unconditionally. Retrieval of the application forms will further establish the fact that the complainant read and understood the terms and conditions of the policy opted for before putting his signature on the said application form. The complainant himself admitted that he did not mention the actual reason for free look cancellation and has suppressed the said fact. The complainant had earlier approached of the appellate bodies including the Apex Grievance Redressal Officers of both the bank as well as insurance company. All such bodies have observed no merits on the allegation so made and accordingly turned down the issue. The complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period and thereby the question of cancellation of the policy does not arise. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant on his own accord went to o.p. no.1 for opening a policy. The complainant has alleged that he was persuaded by the men of o.p. no.1 for opening the policy by paying one time amount of Rs.8 lakhs. The complainant has alleged that after receiving the policy he became astonished to find that in the policy document it was mentioned that annual premium would be Rs.8 lakhs. After coming to know of the said fact the complainant became astonished and he made contact with o.ps. and he was informed that since he failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period his prayer for cancellation of the policy cannot be entertained. It appears from the record that the complainant to ventilate his grievance went to highest forum of the bank as well as ombudsman for redressal of his grievance. Everywhere it was decided by the concerned authority that the complainant failed to exercise his option for cancellation of the policy within free look period and thereby the claim of the complainant was not entertained. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant came to learn that his cancellation of the policy cannot be entertained by the insurance company on 19.4.13, but the complainant after receiving the said letter from the insurance company did not file the case within the statutory period of 2 years. Moreover, the complainant failed to file a petition for condonation of delay. Merely because the complainant went to different Fora for ventilation of his grievance cannot give any right to the complainant for filing the case beyond the statutory period as laid down in Sec 24 A of the C.P. Act. It appears from the record that the complainant did not come within 2 years from the date of repudiation of the claim of the complainant. It appears from the materials on record that the policy started to get effect from the date of issuance of the policy and as per Sec 45 of Insurance Company the policy not to be called in question after 2 years. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant after the lapse of statutory period filed this case when the effect of the policy had already started; therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.543/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
