- Shibprasad Mukherjee,
Sec-2B, Bidhan Nagar, P.O. Durgapur,
D-174, Shastri Avenue,
NR Main Road, Dist. Burdwan,
Durgapur, West Bengal – 713212. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Gariahat Branch, 1st Floor,
26A, Hindustan Park,
Gariahat Shopping Mall,
Gariahat , Kolkata-29.
- India Infoline Insurance Brokers Ltd.
1, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71
-
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 22 Dated 20/01/2016.
The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.2 is the agent of o.p. no.1. O.p. no.1 is the registered limited company and is dealing in insurance business. Complainant invested Rs.1 lakh in the said policy of o.p. no.1 being the policy no.14618497. After making such payment as per submission and the statement of the agents and the representatives of the o.p. the complainant received the acknowledgement and policy certificate from which it is revealed that the policy period for 10 years and the premium has to be paid 5 years annually.
Complainant after receiving the said documents found that the statement of the representative of o.p. differs from the documents received from o.p. and complainant fount that it was not possible for him to continuing the recurring responsibilities of 5 years and as such complainant decided to place the request to o.p. to refund his deposited amount on cancellation of such policy.
Complainant accordingly requested the o.p. to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1 lakh as described above on cancellation of the said policy but o.p. did not refund the said amount in spite of receiving such request from the complainant. Hence, the case was filed by the complainant with the prayers contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
O.p. no.1 in their w/v stated that in or about Sept. 2011 complainant approached through o.p. no.2 who is the broker of o.p. no.1 and expressed his willingness to avail a life insurance policy. O.p. no.2 furnished details of several policies including terms and conditions thereof. After understanding the same, complainant applied for ‘HDFC Standard Life Classic Assurance Plan’. As per the terms, complainant was required to pay yearly premium @ Rs.99,999/- for 5 years. The policy period was for 10 years. He duly filled up and signed the application form. Upon his written application, the said policy was issued in favour of the complainant.
Complainant also signed the illustration document which clearly states that working benefit, the term and type of policy. Accordingly, o.p. issued the policy being no.14618497. The original policy documents was sent to complainant’s address and he duly received the same.
The said original policy documents also contained a letter wherein “option to return’ clause was stated as per regulation 6(2) of Protection of policy holders’ Interest Regulation 2002 which gives the policy holder the option to return the policy stating the reason thereof within 30 days from the date of receipt of the policy document in case the policy holder is not agreeable to the provisions of the same.
Complainant paid premium only for first year and failed to pay the 2nd premium which was due on 21.9.12. It is pertinent to mention here that in spite of receipt of the original policy certificate, the complainant did not chose for the option for return the said policy within the free look period and he applied for cancellation of the same only in Jan. 2012 i.e. much after expiry of the free look period.
O.p. no.2 in their w/v stated that complainant, being satisfied by the information about insurance of various brands, choose to invest indifferent policies of o.p. no.1 and selected to invest on policy no.14618497 and subsequently made a payment of Rs.1 lakh.
O.p. no.2 informed the complainant about the 30 day free look period, essentially provided by o.p. no.1 to complainant, where complainant have his right to review, correct or edit any material information, mentioned in the policy form, and on the satisfaction of the complainant, the policy can be continued or otherwise the complainant can stop the policy and get his money amounting to Rs.1 lakh back. Thereafter o.p. no.1, after acknowledging the payment, sent the policy document to complainant at the address provided by him, where the clause about free look period is mentioned.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant invested Rs.1 lakh in the said policy of o.p. no.1 being the policy no.14618497. After making such payment as per submission and the statement of the agents and the representatives of the o.p. the complainant received the acknowledgement and policy certificate from which it is revealed that the policy period for 10 years and the premium has to be paid 5 years annually. Complainant after receiving the said documents found that the statement of the representative of o.p. differs from the documents received from o.p. and complainant fount that it was not possible for him to continuing the recurring responsibilities of 5 years and as such complainant decided to place the request to o.p. to refund his deposited amount on cancellation of such policy. Complainant accordingly requested the o.p. to refund the deposited amount of Rs.1 lakh as described above on cancellation of the said policy but o.p. did not refund the said amount in spite of receiving such request from the complainant.
It appears from the w/v of o.p. that complainant, being satisfied by the information about insurance of various brands, choose to invest indifferent policies of o.p. no.1 and selected to invest on policy no.14618497 and subsequently made a payment of Rs.1 lakh.
O.p. no.2 informed the complainant about the 30 day free look period, essentially provided by o.p. no.1 to complainant, where complainant have his right to review, correct or edit any material information, mentioned in the policy form, and on the satisfaction of the complainant, the policy can be continued or otherwise the complainant can stop the policy and get his money amounting to Rs.1 lakh back. Thereafter o.p. no.1, after acknowledging the payment, sent the policy document to complainant at the address provided by him, where the clause about free look period is mentioned.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that complainant did not abide by the terms and conditions of the policy documents within free look period. That being the position we are constrained to hold that o.ps. did not have any deficiency in service being service providers and complainant has failed to substantiate and prove his case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismisses on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
