PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant the insurance advisor approached her to take policy.  Therefore, in the year-2008 believing the advice of the insurance advisor took policy and issued cheque for Rs.2 Lakhs.  The O.P.No.2 issued policy certificate in the name of the complainant.  The policy was handed over to the insurance advisor as it will be required for future correspondence.  The complainant paid three premiums on Rs.2 Lakhs for each for three years.  After the expiry of three years in November-2013, the complainant made enquiry with the insurance advisor for getting her pension.  The insurance advisor requested to meet the O.P.No.2.  The policy document was in English.  The complainant could not understand the terms and conditions.  The insurance advisor was also not able to explain the terms and conditions.  The policy document is in small printed English words.  There was no Marathi copy.  The policy is not applicable to the person more than 50 years old.  Therefore, policy should not have been issued to the complainant who is aged about 67 years.  The O.P.No.1 has framed the cheating policy in English with fraudulent and dishonest intention as it should not be known to Marathi customers.  The opponents deceived the complainant causing financial loss to her.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the entire amount of Rs.6 Lakhs with interest.  The complainant has filed this complaint for refund of Rs.6 Lakhs with interest.

2)                The opponents appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complainant is retired as Assistant Labour Commissioner.  On her request, policy was issued.  She paid three premiums of Rs.2 Lakhs every year.  The complainant is entitled for 100% fund value after 23^rd October, 2014.  The complainant has paid renewal premium every year without any objection.  It is denied that the complainant could not understand English.  The complainant failed to cancel the policy within free look period.  Therefore, she is not entitled for the refund of the entire amount.  The policy is subject to market risks.  The complainant will earn pension/annuity after 23^rd October, 2019 as per the policy document.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that policy was issued to the complainant and the complainant paid three annual premium of Rs.2 Lakhs each i.e. Rs.6 Lakhs in total.  In the complaint itself, the complainant has stated that the policy document was handed over to the insurance advisor as it will be required for future correspondence.  She has admitted that she paid Rs.2 Lakhs every year for three years.  In the fourth year, she approached insurance advisor for enquiry about the pension.  She is claiming that she could not understand English.  Insurance advisor was also not knowing English and could not explain policy document in Marathi.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant is retired as Assistant Labour Commissioner.  She received the policy document and paid premium for three years.  After fourth year, she is claiming that she does not know English.  The complaint is drafted in English.  The complainant personally argued the matter before the Forum in English.  On this background, the submission of the complainant that she does not know English can not be accepted.  She has accepted the policy documents and paid premium for three years.  The policy document is the agreement in between the parties and it is binding on both the parties.  It was necessary for the complainant to cancel the policy within free look period.  After four years, she can not claim refund of entire amount with interest.  It is market risk policy therefore, the complainant is entitled for the fund value as per market rate.  In the written statement, the opponents have stated that after 23^rd October, 2014, the complainant is entitled for the refund of 100% fund value.  According to the opponents, the policy will vest on 23^rd October, 2019 and annuity will start after vesting date.  It is the choice of the complainant to claim withdrawal of the fund or to wait for the annuity.  But, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of entire premium amount along with interest.  In the complaint, allegations are made about the fraudulent and dishonest intention of the opponents.  But, there is no evidence to that effect.  Thus, the complainant is not entitled for the refund of entire premium amount along with interest.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 23^rd December, 2014