MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 213 of 2010.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant took Life Insurance Policy for insurance cover of Rs.36,000/- in her name and in the name of her two minor children through OP No.2. She also took, another policy for Rs.36,000/- in the name of her husband Sh.Nigel Studley along with her minor daughter namely Abigail Studley, aged 5 years through OP No.3. It was stated that the splitting of the insurance into two policies as per the complainant was on the initiative of OP No.3. The insurance of just one person for Rs.36,000/- was not demanded or requested by the complainant.  The proposal form for insurance from complainant was received on 10.8.2009, alongwith first premium deposit of Rs.36,000/- and accordingly, OPs issued the policy on 10.8.2009. The policy document was delivered to the communication address of the complainant on 20.8.2009. It was further stated that the proposal form and the other forms were signed by the complainant and her husband on the assurance of OP No.3 on 16.7.2009. The complainant made one time payment of Rs.72,000/- for insurane cover and insurance cover of her husband and three children. The complainant gave two cheques drawn on HSBC Bank for Rs.36,000/- each to OP No.3. The policy holder as per the assurance of the OPs had the option to cancel the policy during the free look period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy documents, as mandated by the Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority. It was further stated that the complainant was surprised to find that policy No.12339976 received on 2.8.2009 for Rs.36,000/- was only in her name and did not include the names of her three children and husband. The total premium of Rs.72,000/- was paid for whole family to have one time policy, whereas, the annual policy in the name of only the complainant was issued by the OPs. The complainant tried to contact OPs No.1 to 3 for revoking policy No.12339976 within the free look period but they intentionally and deliberately did not acknowledge the receipt of telephone calls and emails sent by her. It was further stated that the husband of the complainant fell seriously ill, in the intervening period, and was in need of medical help, but as there was no policy cover provided by the OPs, in his name, the complainant had to spend huge amount on his treatment. The above said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs wherein they stated that they received the duly filled and signed application form/proposal form, from the complainant on 10.8.2008, for the issuance of a policy. In the proposal form, the complainant had opted for yearly mode of premium payment of Rs.36,000/- and on receipt of the first premium deposit vide cheque No.055565 dated 16.7.2009 for Rs.36,000/-, the policy bearing No.12339976 was issued, as per the details updated in the proposal form. As prescribed under Regulation 4(1) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulation 2002, the policy document was duly dispatched to the complainant on 17.8.2009, and the same was received by her on 20.8.2009.  It was further stated that as per regulations of the IRDA, the complainant was entitled to revoke the policy during the free look period of 15 days but she retained the same and did not return the same to the OPs for cancellation during this period.  It was further stated that the complainant contacted the OPs only in December, 2009 and started raising frivolous allegations, and demanded that the amount paid by the complainant be refunded. Since the request of the complainant was received by the OPs long after the free look period, so, they were not liable to refund the amount of the policy to the complainant. The OPs have, however, returned the amount of Rs.36,000/- vide another cheque for the second policy. All other material allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.

4.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant/appellant filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh.Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.K.S.Cheema, Advocate, for the respondents, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.         The whole grievance of the appellant/complainant against the OPs is that she had applied for Life insurance Policy, for her husband three minor children, including herself but the OPs issued the policy for a sum of Rs.36,000/- only in her name and the other cheque for a sum of Rs.36,000/- was returned by them on 9.10.2009 without assigning any reason for not issuing the policy, in the name of the complainant’s husband and her three minor children.

9.       The respondents/OPs rebutted the contention of the appellant/complainant and submitted that they issued the policy, as per the proposal form, signed by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant was at liberty to revoke the policy within the free look period, but she failed to revoke the same within the stipulated period. Moreover, the correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding the revocation of the above said policy was beyond the free look period.

10.     After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded herein after. It is evident from Annexure C-4, application/proposal form, submitted by the appellant that she signed the same, for obtaining ICICI Prudential Health Care Policy, in her own name. The annual premium mentioned in the form aforesaid is Rs.36,000/-. She paid this amount through cheque and receipt in that regard is Annexure C-6. She nominated her husband as a nominee, in the proposal form. In Annexure C-4, there is nothing to show that she intended to obtain two policies, in her name, and in the names of her minor children and husband. The OPs are required to act according to the terms and conditions of the proposal form, at the time of issuing the policy. In case, the appellant was not satisfied with the terms of the policy issued to her, she could revoke the same, within 15 days i.e. the free look period, from the date of receipt of the policy documents. She, however, failed to revoke the policy, within the free look period. No doubt, the appellant sent e-mails Annexure C-1 dated 7.12.2009, Annexure C-2 dated 9.1.2010, Annexure C-3 dated 30.12.2009 and letter Annexure C-8, dated 8.10.2009, for cancellation of the policy, but the said correspondence, was beyond the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy papers. In these circumstances, there was no deficiency in rendering service by the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

11.     In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

12.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 Pronounced.                                                                        

6^th April, 2011.