1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the agents of the Ops contacted him over Phone No. (91-1204094610 & 91-6126610323) and requested him to propose for a policy having money back and medi claim facilities every year and to deposit Rs.34, 000/- for 3 years and avail the benefits for 10 years and after 10 years the deposit would be 2 times.  It is submitted that one Aswini Kumar and one Vishal Sribastav, who are the agent of the OPs requested the complainant to send required documents along with cheque amount of Rs.34, 000/- besides a cancelled cheque to their Patna office for issue of policy bond.  Accordingly the complainant has sent copy of Pan Card, Voters I Card, Cheque of Axis Bank for Rs.34, 000/- along with cancelled cheque to OP.2 on 12.6.2014.  It is also submitted that the Ops had not sent proposal for signature of the complainant and hence the Ops have either forged the signature or scanned it on the proposal form behind the complainant.  The complainant after receipt of policy bond vide No.01218195 on 09.07.2014 found that the Ops have issued an Endowment policy for 10 years and the complainant is to pay premiums for 10 years but not for 3 years as suggested by the Ops and the promises of the agents of the Ops are not available under the policy.  Thereafter the complainant contacted different officials and agents of the Ops who assured that the agent of Ops is soon approaching the complainant but in vain.  It is also further submitted that both the agents personally talked to the complainant over phone and assured to change the policy but they did not turn up and tried to linger the matter to pass over the 15 days free look period.  The complainant has handed over the original bond to the Visakhapatnam branch of Ops on 02.08.2014 with request for refund of premium and the Ops on 04.8.2014 through a letter assured for consideration of free look period cancellation but on 09.10.2014 turned down the request of the complainant stating that the free look period is over.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.34, 000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.6.2014 and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that basing upon the statements and declarations submitted by the complainant in the proposal form, they issued Policy bearing No.01218195 namely Future Generali Pearls Guarantee with date of commencement 24.6.2014.  The complainant has received the policy bond on 09.7.2014 and hence the free look period had expired on 23.7.14.  It is contended that the complainant has never contacted them for cancellation of policy within free look period and they have never assured to change the policy.  It is contended that the complainant has requested for cancellation of policy only on 02.08.2014 with a reason for his wife’s medical treatment but not against any false benefit promise by the Ops.  As the request dated 02.08.14 falls beyond the free look period which ended on 23.7.14, the Ops declined the policy cancellation request of the complainant.  Thus denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their case. The Ops filed affidavit.  We have heard from the A/R for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, sale of Future Generali Pearls Guarantee policy vide No.01218195 by the Ops to the complainant is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that as per repeated requests of the Ops through their agents, namely Aswini Kumar and Vishal Sribastav, he agreed to propose the money back and medi claim policy and sent documents along with a Cheque for Rs.34, 000/- to the Ops.  The agents of the Ops gave an impression that the proposed policy is having money back and medi claim facilities and the complainant is to deposit @ Rs.34, 000/- for only 3 years and avail benefits for 10 years.  As per the complainant, believing the agents of the Ops, he sent Cheque for Rs.34, 000/- besides required documents on 12.6.14 but he has not signed the proposal form.  When the complainant received the policy bond on 09.7.14, he found that the Ops have sold an Endowment Plan, the features and facilities of which are altogether different than that of the assured one.

5.                     It is seen that the Ops vehemently denied any assurances of that nature given to the complainant by their agents.  No affidavit of agents is filed in this case in order to substantiate their stands in this regard.  Unfortunately the Ops have not stated that they had sent proposal form to the complainant and the complainant had filled up the form for Endowment Plan.  Though there seems a cover of cloud on the issue of forged and scanned signature on the proposal form as raised by the complainant, it was clearly ascertained that the proposal form has been filled up by other than the complainant.  The Ops also nowhere stated that they had either sent proposal form by posts or any of their agent had ever approached the complainant personally with proposal form.  In the above premises our doubt becomes clear that the complainant was only satisfied with the promises of the agents of the Ops but not with the present policy as issued.

6.                     Further the complainant stated that being dissatisfied with the terms of the policy, he contacted different officers and agents of the Ops including OP No.2 and they assured that their agent is soon approaching the complainant to sort out the matter.  Mr. Awini Kumar and Mr. Vishal Sribastav personally talked with the complainant over phone and assured early resolution of dispute regarding non signing of proposal form by the complainant and also change of policy to a better one.  As the Ops did not turn up and tried to linger the matter, the complainant wanted to return the policy and registered a complaint through the Toll Free Number of the Ops but to no action by the Ops.  The complainant finally handed over the policy bond to OP.2 on 02.08.2014 and the Ops through a letter dt.04.08.14 assured to consider free look cancellation but on 09.10.14 turned down the cancellation request of the complainant.

7.                     The Ops stated that the complainant has received the bond on 09.07.2014 and the free look period was valid till 23.7.2014 but the complainant submitted cancellation request on 02.08.2014 and hence they turned down the request of the complainant.

8.                     In this case, the agents of the Ops requested the complainant over phone to propose for a policy.  No representative of the Ops was ever physically present before the complainant to obtain proposal.  The documents were sent through posts to OP.2 by the complainant and the complainant has received the bond through posts also.  When the above matters are proved to be true, request of the complainant for cancellation of policy over phone to the agents of the Ops including OP No.2 in our opinion is also true.  As such the complainant has requested the Ops for cancellation of policy after receipt of bond on 09.07.14 and the Ops as well as their agents must have assured the complainant for resolution of the dispute but without taking prompt action to the grievances of the complainant, the Ops consumed time for which free look period was over.  Further the innocence of complainant in the entire episode is clearly visible to us but the Ops and their agents consumed time by exploited the opportunity.  Due to such inaction of the Ops the complainant was to meet the OP.2 at Visakhapatnam to hand over the bond on 02.8.2014.  The Ops through their letter dt.04.08.2014, which is available on record assured to resolve the dispute within 15 days but after a gap of more than 2 months i.e. on 09.10.2014 turned down the cancellation request of the complainant.  This inaction of Ops in our view amounts to deficiency in service.  Further misrepresentation of the Ops before proposal also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

9.                     From the above discussions, it can be safely concluded that the policy was mis-sold to the complainant and in spite of requests within free look period by the complainant; the Ops have not taken any action.  Hence the Ops are required to cancel the policy and refund Rs.34, 000/- to the complainant with interest from the date of deposit.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.34, 000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 12.6.2014 after cancelling the policy in question and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  No orders as to costs.

(to dict.)