BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kuldip Studley w/o Nigel Studley aged about 39 years r/o House No.3745/1, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vinod Silk Mills Compound, Chakraborty Ashok Nagar, Ashok Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400404.

2.  The Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

3.  Mr. Paramdip Oberoi, Area Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Balkar Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.K.S. Cheema, Adv. for OPs

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             The instant complaint has been filed by Mrs. Kuldip Studley under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

              Briefly stated, the complainant had applied for a life insurance policy in the name of herself and her two minor children.  She had applied for another policy in the name of her husband and another minor child.  The insurance policy cover for both the policies was Rs.36,000/- each. The splitting of the insurance into two policies as per the complainant was on the initiative of OP-3.  The complainant had in fact made request for only one policy.  After signing the proposal form, the complainant deposited the first premium amount of Rs.36,000/- and was issued a policy which was delivered to her on 20.8.2009.  The policy holder as per the assurance of the OPs had the option to cancel the policy under a free look period of 15 days. When the complainant received the policy she was surprised to see that the policy was only in her name and did not include the names of her husband  and children. Also the policy according to the complainant was for a one time payment and not annual premium.  She, therefore, contacted the OPs for revoking the policy within the free look period but the OPs did not comply with her request.  Meanwhile the husband of the complainant feel seriously ill. Since there was no policy cover, the complainant had to bear the burden of the complete expenses herself.  According to the complainant the action of the OPs in not issuing a policy in the name of her husband and children amounts to deficiency in service.  She has, therefore, filed the instant complaint for refund of the amount paid alongwith interest and compensation.

2.        The OPs in their reply have submitted that after receipt of the proposal form from the complainant alongwith a cheque for Rs.36,000/-, a policy bearing No.12339976 was issued to the complainant as per the following details :-

As per regulations of the IRDA, the complainant was entitled to a free look period of 15 days. The complainant never exercised any option within this time.  In fact, she contacted the OPs only in December 2009 and started raising frivolous allegations of mis-selling and forgery and demanded that the amount paid by her be refunded.  The OPs have contended that since the request was received long after the free look period, they were not liable to refund the amount. Also the OPs have already returned the payment of Rs.36,000/- vide another cheque for the second policy. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 
5.        The complainant has alleged that she was not allowed to cancel her policy within the free look period even though she had sent various emails and letters to them in this regard. The first correspondence by the complainant’s husband to the OP placed on record is dated 1.9.2009 and the same reads as under :-

“My wife rec’d her Health Solutions policy over a week ago but I still do not have mine.  Plz can you chase and revert? Thx.”

All her other mails are after the free look period.

6.        The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs because she is aggrieved and dis-satisfied that they have issued a policy in her favour and not in favour of her husband. Also the names of her children as promised by the OPs have not been entered in her policy. Again the complainant has alleged that the premium payable was one time and not annual.  The OPs have contended that the policy had been issued to the complainant as per the proposal form and the terms contained therein. The policy was in the name of the complainant with premium payable annually.  Further they had not issued a policy in the name of the husband and the amount had accordingly been refunded to the applicant.  The complainant has submitted that she was not willing to continue with the policy in her name alone after her husband’s premium amount was returned.  However, she has not been able to impress this fact upon them within the time of free look period.  All the correspondence exchanged between the parties relates to a period beyond the free look period. Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.  The allegations and desire for refund of the complainant seem an afterthought when her husband did not receive his policy.
7.        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.