Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 01-06-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North) in CC/415/2014.

The dispute relates to alleged mis-selling of an insurance policy by the agent of the Respondent Insurance Company to the Appellant.

After an abortive attempt to serve notice upon the Respondent No. 3, the agent concerned, her name was struck out from the cause title of the Appeal vide order dated 03-10-2018.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1&2 were heard and documents on record carefully gone through.

The moot point for determination is whether the Appellant made cancellation request within the ‘free-look’ or not.

According to the written complaint dated 30-04-2014 lodged by the Appellant, he got the policy bond five days prior to the issuance of aforesaid complaint letter.

It appears from the cause title that the Appellant resides at Purba Kalikapur, Kazipara, Pui Pukur, Khudirampally Club, PO & PS. Barasat, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 124; whereas, the policy bond was sent to Pulpukur Road, 12 Barasat, Kolkata, West Bengal – 700 124.

In view of the aforesaid mismatch, there seemed no valid reason to doubt the contention of the Appellant that due to mis-delivery of the policy bond, he received the same at a belated stage.

It appears from the record that the Appellant signed the form in Bengali implying that he did not have sufficient knowledge of English. Therefore, it was virtually impossible for him to notice the anomaly that inadvertently or otherwise crept in the proposal form.  Incidentally the said form was filled up by the Respondent No. 3. 

The Respondent Nos. 1&2 have not adduced any documentary proof to show that based on the address proof document provided by the Appellant, the address column of the proposal form was filled up by the concerned agent correctly.  

In our considered opinion, therefore, the Appellant deserves benefit of doubt in the matter.

It would not be wholly unrelated to mention here that allegedly a wrong mobile phone number was mentioned in the proposal form by the agent concerned. 

Further, the declared income of the Appellant for the financial year 2012-2013 was Rs. 6,61,970/-.  In view of this, it is hardly believable that a businessman of such moderate income would take an insurance policy that would require him to pay premium @ Rs. 3,99,999/- p.a.

As noted hereinabove, the Appellant was not literate enough to understand the contents of the proposal form filled up in English.  As the concerned agent did not turn up before the Ld. District Forum, it could not be ascertained independently as to whether or not the nitty-gritty of the policy was explained to the Appellant. It is an open secret that agents of insurance companies obtain signatures of prospective policyholders on blank proposal forms and later on fill up the same according to their whims and fancies.  To aggravate the situation further for the Appellant, he did not have proper understanding of English language for which it was impossible for him to detect the anomaly crept in the proposal form.

The proposal form being not filled up by the Appellant himself and given that a different mobile number was mentioned in the proposal form, indications are ripe that the Respondent No. 3 did everything with a mala fide intention. 

Considering so many irregularities in respect of the subject policy, we are inclined to accord benefit of doubt to the Appellant and allow this Appeal with a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1&2 to refund, within 40 days from today, the sum of Rs. 3,99,999/- to the Appellant along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.  The Appellant also deserves litigation cost amounting to Rs. 10,000/- from the Respondent Nos. 1&2 within the aforesaid stipulated period.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.