- Sri Samarendra Mohan Ray,
2A, Mandeville Garden,
Flat No.7A, Kolkata-19. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Indasind Bank,
Through Branch Manager,
21/1A, Ekdalia Road,
P.S. Gariahat, Kolkata-19.
- Aviva Life Insurance Co.(I) Ltd.
Aviva Tower,
Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course,
DLF Phase, V, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122003, Hariyana. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 15 Dated 16-06-2015.
The case of the complainant in short is that in and around Oct. 2011 o.p. no.1 pleased to visit complainant’s home, as a corporate agent of o.p. no.2 and managed to capture a signature at proposal form, which was blank, at the time of signing and when complainant ask o.p. no.1 to fill up the proposal form, he assured to fill it up in a few days, as per information, given by the complainant. Complainant on good faith signed the same and hand over a cheque for Rs.59,996/- being the insurance premium for the first year.
The said corporate agent of o.p. no.2, viz. o.p. no.; filled up the proposal form at his own and fictitious manner in order to acceptance of the same by o.p. no. and for their personal gain and thus both o.ps. adopted unfair trade practice.
Upon receiving the policy complainant was unable to manage time to go through the same due to his prolong sufferings and medical treatments.
Complainant able to look after the policy, he discovered that the policy contains the particulars of fictitious person and not the complainant, excepting the name, address and Pan no.
Complainant immediately made a complaint to o.p. no.2 for cancellation of the said policy and to refund the amount but o.p. no.2 refused to cancel the policy, in spite of information, that the policy in dispute being policy no.TDW 3118796, is full of misinformation, about the complainant.
Decision with reasons:
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.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that o.p. no.2 stated that complainant concealed material facts and has come to this Forum with unclean hands. It further appears from the record that as required under IRDA Regulations 2002 the policy terms and conditions specially provides for a free look period of 15 days during which period the policy owner is entitled to review the terms and conditions and request for cancellation, if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy and the refund of the amount paid as premium cannot be sought as the request for the same is made beyond the free look period of 15 days and after 15 days the policy terms and conditions attain finality.
It is also seen from the record that in and around Oct. 2011 o.p. no.1 pleased to visit complainant’s home, as a corporate agent of o.p. no.2 and managed to capture a signature at proposal form, which was blank, at the time of signing and when complainant ask o.p. no.1 to fill up the proposal form, he assured to fill it up in a few days, as per information, given by the complainant. Complainant on good faith signed the same and hand over a cheque for Rs.59,996/- being the insurance premium for the first year. The said corporate agent of o.p. no.2, viz. o.p. no.; filled up the proposal form at his own and fictitious manner in order to acceptance of the same by o.p. no. and for their personal gain and thus both o.ps. adopted unfair trade practice. Upon receiving the policy complainant was unable to manage time to go through the same due to his prolong sufferings and medical treatments.
In view of the findings above we hold that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers towards the consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to cancel the policy in question standing in the name of the complainant since the policy particulars are not matched with the complainant and to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.59,996/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand nine hundred ninety six) only and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. no.2 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no.1 without cost. O.p. no.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty four thousand) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
