Jaswinder Singh filed a consumer case on 16 Oct 2017 against Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/605/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Oct 2017.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/605/2016
Jaswinder Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
In person
16 Oct 2017
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
============
Consumer Complaint No
:
CC/605/2016
Date of Institution
:
03/08/2016
Date of Decision
:
16/10/2017
Jaswinder Singh son of Ram Singh, r/o Vill. Bhabat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.
……… Complainant.
Versus
Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, 1st Floor, Gold Hill Square No. 690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore. Branch Office at SCO 166-167, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
……. Opposite Parties
BEFORE: SMT.SURJEET KAUR PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA MEMBER
For Complainant
:
Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party
:
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER
Sh. Jaswinder Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Exide Life Insurance Co. Limited (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that on 14.06.2014 while opening an account with Vyasa Bank Limited, Sector 44, Chandigarh, its employees in connivance with some of the employee of Opposite Party made the Complainant to sign and purchase an Insurance Policy by depositing a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the same. Having come to know about the said fact, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and submitted a request dated 22.07.2015 for refund of his amount, but to no success. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party, but the same did not yield the desired results. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
Opposite Party in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that after receipt of initial premium an insurance policy bearing No. 02932816 was issued to the Complainant to his correspondence address. After receipt of the policy document, the Complainant had 15 days period (free look period) to exercise his option for cancelation of the policy, but he had never approached the answering Opposite Party within free look period. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.
We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have also perused the record.
On perusal of the Document No.1 (Pg. No.4 of the paper-book), placed on record by the Opposite Party, we find that the proposal form was duly signed by the Complainant himself and thereafter, the Policy in question was issued to him. In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is a proof of undue influence, coercion or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. There is no dispute about the fact that the policy dated 16th July, 2014 with date of commencement as 14th June, 2014 was admittedly received by the complainant (Document No.2). But after the receipt of the policy, the complainant did not approach the Opposite Party for cancellation of the policy, within the free look period, meaning thereby he accepted the policy document with its terms and conditions. There is no document on record for request of cancellation of policy within free look period. Rather, it has come on record that for the first time, vide letter dated 27th July, 2015 (Annexure C-2), the Complainant requested for the cancellation of the Policy and refund of the premium amount. Since the Complainant had the option to return/ surrender the Policy within a period of 15 days, but he had not exercised the said option, therefore, he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Policy. As the complainant retained the policy documents without raising any objection, within free look period, therefore, the complaint does not have any merit.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
16th Oct., 2017 Sd/-
(SURJEET KAUR)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.