1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he being influenced by the agent of the OP had deposited Rs.50, 000/- with ING Life Insurance with assurance from the agent that the complainant will be eligible to get a loan of Rs.5.00 lac within one month of deposit of first premium.  The complainant after deposit of first premium contacted the agent to get the loan but in vain.  It is submitted that the complainant received the policy bond on 31.3.2014 from which he could ascertain that Rs.48, 501/- out of Rs.50, 000/- has been reflected in the policy bond and hence on 03.4.3014 he approached the agent but the agent did not answer.  It is further submitted that he returned the policy to the agent and also lodged complaint with OP on 24.6.2016 but nobody entertained his grievance.  Thus alleging mis-sold of the policy by OP to him, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.70, 000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay Rs.3.50 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant availed life insurance policy No.02871826 as per his proposal dt.04.3.2014 and the policy bond was  sent to the complainant which was received by him on 31.3.2014.  Denying the allegation of mis-sold of the policy to the complainant, the OP contended that as per rule, the complainant if dis-satisfied with the terms of the policy, he was to return the policy bond to the OP citing reason for refund of said policy but in the month of June, 2014 the complainant filed complaint regarding mis-sold of the policy to which the OP replied properly on 21.7.2014.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard the A/R for the OP and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant had proposed for the policy on 04.3.2014 and has deposited Rs.50, 000/- with the OP and the OP has issued policy No.02871826 in favour of the complainant to which the complainant has received on 31.3.2014.  The case of the complainant is that the agent of the OP assured him that if the complainant deposits first premium under the policy, he will be eligible to get a loan of Rs.5.00 lacs in the next month.  After depositing the first premium, the complainant approached the agent to get the loan but  the agent did not act upon as per her assurance and hence he return the policy to the agent.   The complainant has also approached the OP during June, 2014 to cancel the policy and return of amount.

5.                     It is seen from the insurance document that the policy sold to the complainant is purely an insurance product and no non-insurance related benefit is attached to that policy like availing of loan etc.  The policy also speaks about free look peiod of 15 days as per IRDA guidelines.  In such a case, the OP shall return the premium received for the policy.  The complainant has approached the OP during June, 2014 i.e. beyond the free look period.  Hence in our view, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the premium amount.  The complainant also has not paid his renewal premium subsequently and hence his policy lapsed.  It is a settled principle of law that the terms and conditions which were entered into by the parties, are to be strictly adhered to by them.  The complainant has not approached the OP in time for return of the policy and thus did not act prudently.  In the above circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the OP and thus his case is liable to be dismissed.

6.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)