Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Opposite Party No.2 approached the complainant and allured to take life insurance policy by depositing Rs.30,000/- for the period of three years and also assured to get Rs.1,34,000/- and as such, policy bearing No.02018906 was issued to the complainant. Lateron the complainant came to know that the said policy was for the period of 15 years and then, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for the refund of the paid up amount, but the Opposite Parties did not turn up and rather grabbed the hard earned money of the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay of Rs.2 lakh on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.
3. On notice, none has come present on behalf of the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C66 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and hence we have perused the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant accordingly. Perusal of the document Ex.C5 shows that the complainant has purchased the policy from the Opposite Parties bearing No. 02018906 with proposal dated 10.06.2010 and accordingly said policy was issued on 15.06.2010 with premium payment term: full policy term of 15 years with sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and the policy was issued by the Opposite Parties on 15.06.2020 and same was dispatched on 16.06.2010 through speed post via AWB ED026918308IN and said despatch of the policy document has nowhere denied by the complainant. Moreover, in case the policyholder was not satisfied with the features of the terms and conditions of the policy he could review/ withdraw/ return/ alter the details of the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look Period” provision, as per Clause 17 mentioned in the Policy documents, but the complainant has nowhere chosen to get cancel the policy document. Not only this, the complainant has also not denied the receipt of the policy sent by the Opposite Parties to him by speed post via AWB ED026918308IN. Hence, the complainant was given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, and this version has nowhere denied by the Complainant by filing any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant never accepted such terms and conditions of the Opposite Party while purchase the policies in question. In this regard, we find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:-
“22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..”
“24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”
The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Same view has also been expressed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in First Appeal No.485 of 2019 in case Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Versus Atma Singh, decided recently on 11.11.2021.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
8. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
