PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

          This appeal has been filed by OP No1 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) whereby the complaint was allowed and OP No.1 was directed to refund Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant which he had paid as premium on 10.03.2008 for the insurance policy not received by him till date. The OP No.1 was also directed to pay compensation Rs.35,000/- alongwith costs of Rs.7,000/- The OP No.1 was further directed to comply with the order within a period of 30 days of the receipt of its certified copy, failing which it  was liable to pay Rs.5,35,000/-alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of the payment of the insurance premium i.e. 10.03.2008 till the date of realization, besides paying the costs of litigation i.e. Rs.7000/-.

2.                 In nutshell the complainant invested a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs in one time payment insurance policy of OP-1 on 10.03.2008 and handed over a signed cheque to OP No.2 before he went to Canada. It was alleged that when in May, 2009 he came back to India, he was shocked to know that OP-1 has issued a 15 years policy in the name of the Complainant with a premium of Rs.5.00 lacs per annum, instead of a one time premium policy. The complainant was further shocked to know that the policy was alleged to have been handed over to one Mr. Sabdul, who was not known to him neither he authorized any person to receive the policy on his behalf from OP No.1. He requested OP No.1 to convert the policy to one time premium policy. It was stated that vide letter dated 16.06.2009, he also informed the OP-1 that he never went in for a medical test for the above said policy. When his grievance was not redressed he ultimately got served a legal notice dated 11.09.2009 on OP-1 asking it to refund the amount of Rs.5.00 lakh within 15 days, but nothing positive could come. Hence this complaint.

3.                 OP-1 in its reply pleaded that at the time of submitting the Proposal Form, the Complainant signed a Consumer Declaration, wherein he declared that he fully understood the meaning and scope of the proposal form and the questions in it and was submitting the completed proposal on his own accord. The OP-1 issued a Life Saver Unit Linked Policy to the complainant on 31st March, 2008 and the policy documents were dispatched to him on 21st April, 2008, which were received by one Sabdul on his behalf. It was stated that a notice was also given to the Complainant that he had the option to get the policy cancelled within 15 days of the receipt of the policy documents in case he was not satisfied with any of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was stated that the premium notices were also sent regularly to the Complainant for depositing the premium and due to non-depositing of the premium, the policy was lapsed. Denying all other allegations of the complaint, a prayer for the dismissal of the same was made by OP No.1.      

4.                 In its reply, OP-2 pleaded that it had only acted as per the instructions of the Complainant for the purposes of the transfer of the amount to the OP-1 as the Complainant intended to invest the amount in an insurance policy. It was stated that OP-2 had no role to play in respect of the issuance of the policy of insurance or in respect of any medical tests to be done prior to the same. Other allegations of the complaint were denied by OP No.2 with a prayer to dismiss the same with costs.

5.                 Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

6.                 After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

7.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP No.1.

8.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant, respondent-1 in person, Counsel for respondent No.2 and have perused the record carefully.

9.                            The contention of the complainant is that he is a NRI who visits India very often, that in March 2008, he had given Rs. 5.00 lacs for investment in insurance policy as one time payment. However when he came back to India in May 2009, he came to know that the appellant/OP-1 had, issued an insurance policy for 15 years with annual premium of Rs.5.00, which is contrary to his instructions.  The second ground is that after coming to India  in May 2009, when he came to know of the abovesaid deficiency, he requested the appellant/OP-1 to convert the said policy into a single premium policy but they did not agree. It is also, his case that no policy has been delivered to him. The learned District Forum found merit in all his three contentions. We are also in agreement with the learned District Forum for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

10.             The contention of the complainant that he asked for single premium policy is supported by his own affidavit. The appellant/OP-1 has produced the proposal form signed by the complainant, but according to the complainant his signatures were taken on the said form when it was blank. The appellant/OP-1 has not produced its agent who contacted the complainant and is alleged to have explained him the various terms and conditions of the policy. The contention of the complainant, that he asked for a single premium policy of Rs.5.00 lacs, could be contradicted only by the said agent and in absence of the affidavit thereof, the contention of the complainant is proved to be correct.

11.              The next contention of the complainant is that policy has not been delivered to him so far. As against it the appellant/OP-1 has contended that the policy was delivered to one Sabdul, however they did not produce the affidavit of Sabdul, aforesaid in this respect. It is not clarified as to whether any such person existed and what was the authority with Sabdul from the side of the complainant/respondent-1 to receive the said policy. There is no proof produced by the appellant/OP-1 if the policy was put in transmission or ever reached the address of the complainant.  The contention of the appellant/OP-1 that it was delivered to Sabdul, even if delivered, cannot be said to have been delivered to the complainant or his authorized agent. We therefore, agree with the learned District Forum that the policy if any issued by the appellant/OP-1 has not at all been issued or delivered to the complainant.

12.             The appellant/OP-1 admitted that there is a free look period in the said policy and the complainant could cancel the same within 15 days of its receipt. Since the complainant has not at all received the policy, the time cannot be said to have expired when the complainant issued the letter Annexure C-1 for converting the alleged policy into a single premium policy. As per Annexure C-1 the complainant had clearly explained that he did not want to have any policy for 15 years with annual premium and that he only wanted a one time payment policy. It was therefore, necessary for the appellant/OP-1 to have cancelled the policy on receipt of Annexure C-1 and they could issue a one time payment policy if they so liked but they did not do so, which was a clear deficiency on their part. Even apart from that the complainant could successfully seek the cancellation of the policy when he issued the notice Annexure C-5 on 11.9.2009 because till then the policy documents had not been delivered to him by the appellant/OP-1. It therefore, cannot be said if the free look period has expired or the policy could not be got cancelled by him.

13.             Since the complainant had not asked  for a 15 year policy having annual premium and the appellant/OP-1 had not issued the single premium policy as desired by him, it was necessary for the appellant/OP-1 to refund the amount. They however, retained the amount unnecessarily without any basis and deprived the complainant of interest, which he could get thereon. Not only this the appellant/OP-1 harassed the complainant who had not only to visit their offices but to get notice served besides wastage of his precious time in pursuing this litigation. It definitely caused him mental and physical harassment for which the learned District Forum has granted appropriate compensation, which cannot be assailed by the appellant/OP-1.

14.             In view of the above, discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-

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