Complainant Jawahar Lal has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of entire amount received from him qua the policy alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of incident till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides the amount in question on account of mental agony, physical harassment and  deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is maintaining his account No.129801501866 with the opposite party no.1 and as such he is consumer of opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 illegally deducted Rs.31,200/- from the above mentioned account and issued policy No.17753381 without his consent and prior permission. When the account was opened there was an amount of Rs.10,388/-. However, at the time of opening of the account, the opposite party no.1 obtained his signatures on number of blank forms/papers and when he deposited money in his account, the opposite parties prepared the above mentioned policy by misusing the blank signed papers/forms for their own interest. He has further pleaded that when he came to know regarding this illegal act of the opposite parties, he requested them to refund his money, but the opposite party no.1 told him that until he will not deposit three installments, amount cannot be refunded. Left with no alternative, he paid the two installments of the amount of Rs.30,734/- and Rs.30,667/-. In addition to the above mentioned installments, the opposite party no.1 has also deducted Rs.4400/- from his account without any reason thereof.  He is in dire need of money, so he is approaching the opposite party no.1 regularly and requesting for the payment alongwith interest, but they are putting the matter with one pretext or the other. He is not in a position to continue the policy and to deposit any other installment. The opposite parties by not making payment of the amount of policy illegally issued by them are trying to back out from their obligations with malafide intention and ulterior motive without any reason or rhyme. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  A legal notice dated 20.4.2018 sent to the opposite party no.1 requesting them to refund the amount in question within 15 days from the receipt of this notice but no reply has been received. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable. Complainant in the present case is leveling allegations of fraud. The allegations of fraud can only be decided by the Civil Court and cannot be decided in a summary procedure. Even the facts given in the complaint clearly shows that the complainant is making false excuses. In para no.2 of the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the opposite party no.1 took the signature of complainant on blank papers and issued policy but in para no.3 he himself alleging that even he had paid two installments. The above facts clearly shows that he is making false excuses and as such he has not come to this Forum with clean hands and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was submitted that actually the complainant got policy from opposite party no.1 by his own freewill and consent. The complainant is making false excuses.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.            Upon notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply through its counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that in the present case the opposite party no.2 herein have acted strictly as per the mandate provided by the complainant/proposer in the Proposal Form and issued the Insurance Policy in conformity with the insurance proposal received by it. It is stated that it is settled law that the insurance terms have to be construed strictly as per the policy terms and conditions and no relief which travels beyond the terms of the insurance policy can be granted, hence no case for deficiency in services is made out in this case as there is no breach on the part of the insurance company accordingly the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In accordance to Clause 6(2) & 4 (1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002, the company had duly sent the welcome kit including the copy of the Proposal Form submitted by the complainant, Covering letter, Policy Documents and the first premium certificate to the complainant’s registered communication address, as provided and opted by him the Proposal Form. Further the Company has also been informing & sending reminders for payment of premium to the complainant regarding the subject policy. In the present complaint there are no allegations of non-receipt of Policy Documents by the complainant in the present complaint. Thus he is well aware that after receiving the policy document a policyholder has a period of 15 days i.e. Free Look Period during which if he is not satisfied with the applicable provisions of the subject policy, he could return the Free Look Period. In such circumstances the Company would have refunded back the first premium amount subject to certain deductions in accordance with Regulation 6 (2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations 2002. Thus the concurrence with the proposition settled in the catena of cases, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground and the complaint is barred by limitation. It is further contended that the Company had sent due regular SMS reminders to the complainant’s registered mobile number with the Opposite partyNo.2i.e. 9872329608 informing the issuance of the policy and also reminding the complainant to pay the outstanding premiums. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that the policy documents were not received by him. The complainant cannot make company responsible for his own, negligence of not approaching the company during Free Look Period for refund of premium amount. The company has asked strictly as per proposal form and terms and conditions of the policy documents   and  there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2, therefore is not liable to refund any amount as demanded by the complainant under the subject policies and the complaint needs to be dismissed out rightly. On merits, it was admitted that complainant was maintaining account No.129801501866 with opposite party no.1 and as complainant submitted online application duly signed for Guaranteed Savings Insurance Plan, bearing No.OL00618089 alongwith Customer Declaration Form and First Premium Deposit through Demand Draft No.200732 dated 10.05.2013,  he became the customer of opposite partyno.2. The said policy bearing No.17753381 was issued on 13.5.2013 with a yearly premium of Rs.30,767/-. Further complainant also executed ECS Mandate in favour of opposite party no.2 to debit the amount of yearly premium from his Bank Account with opposite party no.1. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant paid 3 yearly installments totaling to Rs.90,600/- i.e. up till 18.06.2016 and stopped making payment thereafter for reasons best known to him whereas the complainant was required to pay premiums on yearly mode for entire premium paying terms of 7 years under the said Policy. Opposite party no.2 had sent numerous SMS on the registered mobile number of the complainant intimating him to pay the renewal premium under the policy, however the complainant failed to pay the renewal premium and hence the policy lapsed. It was next submitted that complainant and the opposite party no.2 are abide by the contract of insurance and both parties are governed by the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the policy document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. The opposite party no.2 does not authorize any person to make any assurances or promises that goes beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the present complaint is abuse of process of law and deserves out right dismissal.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.           Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit alonwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

6.       Alongwith the written reply, opposite party no.1 has filed affidavit of Sh.Jagdeep Singh S O ICICI BankBranch, Batala.

7.      Alongwith the written reply, opposite party no.2 has filed affidavit of Bhumika Chudasama, Manager-Legal Ex.OP-2/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6.

8.       On carefully considering all the facts and documents produced on the file, the main case of the complainant is that complainant is maintaining his account No.129801501866  with OP No.1 and OP No.1, illegally deducted Rs.31,200/- from above account and issued a policy No. 17753381 without the consent and prior permission of the complainant. The opening balance in the account of complainant was Rs.10,388/- and OP No.1 obtained signatures of complainant on some blank papers/forms  and when complainant deposited money in his account, then Ops issued this policy by misusing the said blank signed papers/forms. When complainant approaches the bank officials about this policy, he was told by bank officials that he will have to pay three instalments only then he will be refunded. Left with no other alternative, he deposited the other two instalments and prayed for refund of amount but the Ops are lingering the matter on the pretext or the other. The complainant is not in a position to continue the policy. Inspite of service of Legal Notice, the Ops did nothing.

9.       On the other hand, OP No.1 has in its preliminary objection para no.3 replied that complainant is making allegations of fraud which cannot be heard and decided in a summary procedure. The complainant has concocted a false story. He himself has paid other two instalments of the policy and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and all other allegations were denied with a prayer for dismissal of complaint.

10.      OP No.2 filed a detailed written reply with preliminary objections that the policy is issued strictly as per proposal made in the Proposal Form.  In accordance to Clause 6(2) & 4 (1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002, the company had duly sent the welcome kit including the copy of the Proposal Form submitted by the complainant, Covering letter, Policy Documents and the first premium certificate to the complainant’s registered communication address, as provided and opted by him in the Proposal Form. Further the Company has also been informing & sending reminders for payment of premium to the complainant regarding the subject policy. Moreover, in the present complaint there are no allegations of non-receipt of Policy Documents by the complainant in the present complaint. Thus he is well aware that after receiving the policy document a policyholder has a period of 15 days i.e. Free Look Period during which if he is not satisfied with the applicable provisions of the subject policy, he could return the  policy of the company within the Free Look Period. In such circumstances the Company would have refunded back the first premium amount subject to certain deductions in accordance with Regulation 6 (2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations 2002.

That it has been determined through various judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, in Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (R.P.No.2870/2012 decided on 16.10.2012) and Harish Kumar Chadha Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Decided on 07.10.2013 in Revision Petition No.3271 of 2013) that if the Insured/complainant is not satisfied with the policy taken, then he/she should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt i.e. within “the Free-look-Period”. The said proposition has also been clearly laid down in the case of Shrikant Murlidhar Apte Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition No.634 of 2012, decided on 02.05.2013. Further, the National Commission concurred with the findings of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that “Once 15 days ‘cooling off’ period is over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them”. Thus in concurrence with the proposition settled in the catena of cases, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground.

11.      Another plea of the Ops is that the complaint is time barred. The policy was taken in 2013 and the complaint is filed in 2018 so it is badly time barred. The Ops have issued the policy as per proposal form received from the complainant alongwith customer Declaration Form and First Premium Deposit through Demand Draft No.200732 dated 10.05.2013 made numerous SMS on registered telephone number for renewal premium, no response -  bound by the terms and conditions of the policy – Ops cannot be held liable for negligence of complainant for not approaching the Ops with “Free Look Period”. All other allegations denied.

12.       Before going into the merits of the complaint, we would like to discuss legal objections raised by Ops that the present complaint is time barred as the policy was issued way back in 2013 and the complaint is filed in 2018. But if we scan the whole file alongwith documents then we find that complainant paid premium till 2016 and after that stopped paying premium of the policy, so last cause of action arose in 2016. The complaint is filed in June 2018. So it means within 2 years from the date of arising of cause of action. So, the complaint is within limitation and the objection raised by Ops is discarded.

13.      Now the main question to be decided before us is that whether complainant is entitled for the refund of his paid premium amount or not?

         Admittedly the complainant paid the premium for policy for three years and after that even after reminder SMS by OP 2, the complainant failed to deposit the renewal premium. The version of complainant is that OP No.1 illegally invested his money into this policy as they got signed blank papers and forms at the time of opening of account. We have scanned the document Ex.C2 produced on the file which is a copy of pass book. In this document the account opening date is mentioned as 17.11.2011. It means that account was opened about 1.1/2 years back and the policy was purchased in May 2013 as per document. So, this plea of complainant is not                           admissible and moreover the first premium was paid through a Demand Draft No. 200732 dated 10.05.2013 produced as Ex.OP-2/3 and this demand draft must be prepared from his account and complainant might be knowing that fact very well.

14.       It is the plea of OP No.2 that complainant was duly served with the policy documents alongwith terms and conditions of the policy. If he was not satisfied with the policy, he was entitled for a Free Look Period of 15 days and he could have returned this policy but nothing of the sort was done by complainant. Rather he kept mum for a long period of three years and now through the present complaint the OP 2 came to know about the grievance of complainant. Now, the policy has acquired the paid up value as per terms of the policy. And the settlement of Refund amount if any, will be made as per terms and conditions of the policy. The OP No.2 has specifically mentioned in para 17and 18 of the (preliminary objection) of written reply that they sent regular reminders on the registered mobile number of the complainant through SMS. And complainant never alleged that he did not receive the policy documents. This plea of OP 2 is fortified by the document   Ex.C-1 produced on the file by complainant himself. This document clearly proves that complainant received the policy and was well aware of its details. But he did not opt to return the policy within Free Look Period. If he accepted the terms at that time, now he cannot claim refund which is not permissible under the policy. Moreover, nowhere in the complaint, there is any denial about the non receipt of policy or its terms. In the absence of any such pleading or any document, we do not consider that the policy was done without the knowledge of the complainant.

15.     In this complaint complainant has alleged that OP No.1 Bank illegally deducted an amount of Rs.4400/- from the account of complainant. But no evidence is produced on the file to prove this deduction. So, this plea of complainant is also devoid of any merit.

16.    In view of the all above discussion, the complainant fails to prove his version. So, the complaint does not succeed and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

17.           Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be

decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

October 01, 2019.                           Member                       Presiding Member

 MK