Order No. 15 dt. 01/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a business man and he runs his business in Orissa and West Bengal. In the month of Feb. 2014 the complainant received a call from o.p. nos.1 and 2 with the attractive offer for the businessman like the complainant and allured that the policy if opened by the complainant will be one term policy and if the complainant wants to get loan upto Rs.40 lakhs. The complainant thereafter made payment in respect of the said policy to the tune of Rs.3,99,999/- and the policy was issued to the complainant on 10.2.14. After receiving the policy the complainant came to learn that the policy in question is not at all one term policy but there was mentioning of regular premium schedule and the terms of the said policy was 12 years and regular premium the complainant will have to pay of Rs.3,99,999/-. The complainant after getting the policy expressed his dissatisfaction and since he was cheated by o.p. no.1 the complainant thereafter wrote a letter to o.p. no.2 for surrender of the policy, subsequently the complainant received a reply from o.p. insurance company whereby it was stated that the policy cannot be cancelled since the complainant failed to communicate the o.ps. for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. nos.1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.3,99,999/- along with composition of Rs.5 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.p. nos.1 and 2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is not maintainable since the complainant did not come with clean hands. It was stated in the w/v that the complainant in paragraph 6 of the complaint admitted that he availed the subject policy for the purpose of procuring loan, hence his intention was to procure the subject policy being a commercial in nature, as such the C.P. Act is not applicable here in this case. It was further stated that if the insured complainant is not dissatisfied with the policy taken, then he / she should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt of the policy document i.e. within the free look period. Since the complainant failed to exercise his option within the said period therefore by making false allegation against the agent and o.p. nos.1 and 2 cannot be accepted. Apart from the said fact the complainant at the time of filling up the proposal form of the policy put his signature and after going through the terms and conditions of the policy he paid the amount, on the basis of which the policy was issued subsequently. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and accordingly o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant is the policy holder of o.p. nos.1 and 2.
- Whether the complainant was misled by the agent of o.p. nos.1 and 2 for having the policy.
- Whether the complainant exercised his option within the free look period for cancellation of the policy.
- 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 is the businessman and he was made to understand by the agent of o.p. nos.1 and 2 that if he pays Rs.4 lakhs towards one time premium he will be entitled to get loan of Rs.40 lakhs. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant paid the said amount and after receiving the policy on going through the same the complainant came to learn that the annual premium is to be paid @ Rs.3,99,999/- and the period of payment of premium would be 12 years. On going through the policy the complainant became astonished and he contacted o.p. nos.1 and 2 and he exercised his option for cancellation of the policy but o.p. nos.1 and 2 refused to cancel the policy on the ground that the complainant failed to exercise his option within the free look period i.e. within 15 days from the receipt of the policy document. In view of such background of the case the complainant emphasized that o.ps. be directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,99,999/- and also other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the case is not maintainable. The complainant in the petition of complaint admitted that he paid the premium of Rs.4 lakhs for the purpose of getting loan of Rs.40 lakhs for his business purpose. If the complainant had the object of investment in the business for getting loan from o.p. nos.1 and 2 then the object of the complainant was to invest the loan amount in the business which could have been commercial in nature and accordingly as per C.P. Act the complainant will not be entitled to get benefit if the transaction is made for commercial purpose as envisaged u/s 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. It was further emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.ps. that as per the guideline of IRDA the complainant ought to have exercised his option for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the receipt of the policy but the complainant did not exercise his option, therefore the question of cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount does not arise. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence on record it appears that the complainant paid the amount with the object of having the loan facility of Rs.40 lakhs. It is not at all believable that by paying a premium of Rs.4 lakhs any person would get the loan amount of Rs.40 lakhs and the complainant himself claimed to be a businessman and fully aware regarding the financial matters that no one will believe that by paying Rs.4 lakhs only one will get the loan of Rs.40, lakhs. Apart from the said fact the complainant failed to exercise his option within the free look period i.e. within 15 days from the receipt of the policy for cancellation of the same. It is also evident from the materials on record that the complainant provided all the documents to o.ps. at the time of filling up the form for the policy including the complainant provided the income tax return in respect of previous years on the date of filling up the form for obtaining policy. Therefore it cannot be said that the complainant was kept in dark regarding the ins and outs of the said policy. The complainant put his signature on the policy form accordingly and provided all sorts of information to the insurance company. After compliance of all the formalities the form was accepted and the policy was issued. Even after receiving the policy the complainant waited for prolong period and prayed for cancellation of the policy. The o.p. insurance company as per the guideline of IRDA informed the complainant that he failed to exercise his option within 15 days from the receipt of the policy, as such the policy cannot be cancelled. On perusal of the materials on record we do not find any illegality was committed by o.p. insurance company for which it can be said that there was any illegality or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of o.p. insurance company for which the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.415/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
