1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he, being a Govt. servant having 9 years of service left with him,  opted one LIC short term policy through the O.P. No. 1 and submitted all required documents and paid Rs. 2,22,418/- on cheque in the month of December, 2018 vide policy no. 817079860.  It is alleged that he has not received the original money receipt and after lapse of 8 months, O.P.No.1 handed over the alleged insurance policy on 12.09.2019 and after going through the document, he got astonished as he had opted for 10 years term, but the same was issued for 15 years with rider termination after 21 years and he applied for cancellation of such policy on 18.09.2019 with the O.P. No. 2 within one week from the date of receipt of the alleged policy bond, but the O.P. No. 2 declined to cancel the same stating as too late.Thus being harassed mentally and sustained financial loss, he filed this case claiming for cancellation of alleged policy and deposited amount with interest.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed their counter  admitting the issuance of alleged policy under Plan 836 for term of 21 years and premium paying term is 15 years for sum assured  of Rs. 37,00,000/- on payment of Rs. 2,22,418/- + GST and the said amount was paid by the complainant from the maturity of another policy bearing no. 571047458.  Further they contended that the alleged policy can be reduced 16 years for Rs. 25 lakhs but premium will be same from the subsequent policy anniversary.  Further it is contended that as per prevailing practice, the O.P. No. 2 received the policy bond from their office and handed over to complainant on 24.02.2019, but not on 12.09.2019 and complainant can avail the facility of cooling off within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy bond, but the complainant has submitted an application for cooling off after lapse of 7 months.  Further contended that the alleged policy bond was issued on 28.12.2108 which was received by the agent on 19.02.2019 and handed over to complainant on 24.02.2019.  Thus with other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed counter admitting the issuance of alleged policy in favour of the complainant and he was the agent in the alleged policy, but denied the other allegations contending that complainant has given his consent for opting the alleged policy for 21 years of term with 15 years premium paying term.  It is contended that the alleged policy bond was delivered to complainant on 24.02.2019 but not on 12.09.2019, whereas complainant submitted for cancellation of the policy on 18.09.2019 which was denied of having out of free look period and the term period can be reduced on the next policy anniversary and the same was also intimated by the O.P. No. 1 through their letter dated 27.09.2019. Thus, with other contentions, showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Complainant has filed certain documents  like :

1. Copy of letter dated 18.09.2019 issued to O.P. No.1
2. Copy of acknowledgement receipt issued by O.P.No.1
3. Copy of letter dated 27.09.2019 issued by O.P. No.1
4. Copy showing steps in the Insurance Delivery Process
   
   O.P. No. 1 has filed certain documents like

        i.  Xerox copy of proposal form

        ii. Xerox copy of letter dated 31.01.2019 issued by

                complainant.

        iii. Xerox copy of insurance policy bond vide no.

                817079860

O.P. No. 2 has filed the documents like

1. Xerox copy of register showing receipt of alleged

policy from the office of O.P. No. 1

5. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

6. In the instant case, issuance of insurance policy vide no. 817079860 for 21 years of term with premium paying term of 15 years with annual premium of Rs. 2,22,418 and the O.P. No. 2 is the agent in the alleged policy, are admitted one.  The allegations of complainant is that he opted the alleged policy for a short term of 10 years with premium of Rs. 2,22,418/-, whereas the O.Ps have issued for a term of 21 years and also he received the alleged policy bond after lapse of 7 months and on approaching for cancellation the policy within a week of receipt the same, the O.Ps denied for cancellation for the reason of out of cooling off period.Whereas the contentions of O.Ps is that complainant has given his consent for said policy for 21 years and they have handed over the policy on 24.02.2019 and also the complainant approached them for its cancellation after lapse of 7 months, which is out of cooling off period, as such they denied to do so, rather they have suggested for reducing the term period. Now the question arose before to decide that :

1. Whether the alleged policy was handed over to complainant within time period ? 
2.  
3. Whether the O.P. No. 2 (agent) has right to receive the policy bond from the O.P. No. 1 to hand over the same to the complainant ?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled his claim as claimed ?

7. Coming to the first point, we have gone though documents filed by the complainant i.e. Copy of letter dated 18.09.2019 issued to O.P. No.1 wherein complainant made complainant to the O.P. No. 1 regarding that the O.P.No.2 has handed over the alleged policy bond after lapse of 8 months and prayed for cancellation of the alleged policy as the same is not as per his wish, whereas the O.P. No.1, in the last part of para no. 5 of their counter has stated that “that the policy was issued on 28.12.2018 and the bond was received by the agent on 19.02.2019 and the bond was given by the agent to the policy holder on 24.02.2019 (as stated by the agent)” which clearly evident that the O.P. No. 1 is not sure that when the alleged policy bond was handed over to the complainant, only they have stated as per the version of their agent (O.P. No. 2) without making an enquiry over that.  No document was filed by the O.P. No. 1 to prove that the alleged policy was handed over to the complainant in time period.

        Further the O.P. No.2 has categorically stated that he has handed over the alleged policy as on 24.02.2019 and, filed one document            i.e. copy of register showing that he has received the alleged policy bond from the office of O.P. No.1 on 19.02.2019, but no                       evidence brought out by him to prove that he has handed over the alleged policy on 24.02.2019.Hence we feel, the alleged policy               bond has not delivered to the complainant on 24.02.2019 or to say not within the reasonable time period.Accordingly, the answer               goes in favour of the complainant.

8. Coming to the second point, it is ascertained from the counter version of the O.Ps that as per the prevailing practice, the O.P. No. 1 has handed over the alleged policy to their agent (O.P.No.2) on 19.02.2019 with due acknowledgement from him but nowhere it is found that any instructions was given to the concerned agent to hand over the alleged policy bond to the complainant, whereas it is the first and foremost duty of the concerned agent to deliver the said policy bond to the complainant as and when he received the same.  Further it is ascertained from the document filed by the complainant i.e. steps in the insurance delivery process which narrates the role of insurance companies towards delivery process of a policy, wherein it is clearly mentioned that “Insurance companies have different requirements about how a policy can be delivered.  For example a policy may be delivered personally or by registered mail or by courier.  If the policy is delivered personally, then the insurance company specifies that the agent must do so within a certain number of days after the date the policy is issued”.  But in the instant case, the O.P. No.1 should have opted for delivering the alleged policy bond either though registered mail or by courier or by personal delivery with due acknowledgement from the complainant, but without following the above procedure simply they handed over the policy bond to their agent, which led to this dispute.   Hence we do not think that the concerned agent i.e. O.P. No.2 has any right to receive the alleged policy bond from the O.P. No. 1, if he does not serve the same to the complainant within time period.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the complainant.

9. Considering the above discussions, we feel both the O.Ps have their own fault towards providing better services to the complainant and the complainant being a genuine customer, he deserves the best services from the O.Ps since the day of inception of the alleged policy till it’s maturity and not providing the best services, the O.Ps have proved deficiency in services on their respective part. Accordingly third point is answered.   

10. Further it is seen that on many instances that only due to the improper services of the agents, the insurance companies are suffering heavily on socially and financially which is not supposed to happen.  Also it is seen that only to gain higher commissions, generally agents follow wrong procedure to motivate the customers by forgetting their duties to provide services. And in the instant case also the same is happened.  Hence we feel, the agent is solely liable to compensate the complainant for his sufferings and loss.  

11. Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get back his deposited premium from the O.Ps., but failed, for which he is compelled by the O.Ps to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such he is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering his suffering, we feel Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The insurer O.P. No. 1, being the insurer of alleged policy is herewith directed to cancel the above insurance policy and refund the deposited amount with prevailing bank interest from the date of issue of the alleged policy till filing of the case within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the deposited amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of issue of policy till payment.  Further the agent O.P. No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. till payment.

  Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of October, 2020.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.