Order No. 9 dt. 21/11/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was allured by the representative/Agent OP 2 as well as OP1 The policy was only for one time payment of the premium and the com and the complainant agreed to deposit the said premium with the expectation that Ops shall issue Insurance Certificate to that effect. After receiving the policy it was found that the policy was not concerned with one time payment but it was a recurring premium deposit. The complainant did not receive the policy for which he wrote to the Ops for providing the duplicate copy of the said policy dated 30.07.2012. The complainant after receiving a letter from Ops for renewal of premium intimation though the complainant informed the Ops to cancel the policy within freelook period of time by letter dated 14.08.2012. Since the Ops did not refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- for each the complainant had to file this case praying for refund of the deposited amount of Rs.50,000 and compensation of Rs.55,000/- and cost Rs.50,000/-.
The Ops contested the case by filing w/o whereby the OP denied all the material allegation of the complaint. It was stated by the Ops that the complainant on his own accord invested the money in the said policy and the complainant is a businessman was fully aware regarding the liability of the annual payment of premium and in order to avoid the annual premium the complainant filed this case. It was further stated that the complainant paid only a single premium of Rs.49,000/- and the policy was for 6 years having a coverage of 16 years. At the time of filling up of the form for obtaining policy the complainant went through the terms and conditions of said policy. In order to squeeze money from the Ops the complainant filed this case.
Since there was no cogent reason to accept the plea of the complainant that he exercised his option during free look period to cancel the said policy. By suppressing the material fact the complainant manufactured a false story to get back the amount from the Ops. In view of the said fact the Ops has prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the submission of the respective parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant paid one time premium;
- Whether the policy was issued on the basis of acceptance of one time premium;
- Whether the complainant exercised his option during free look period for cancellation of the policy;
- Whether the complainant will be entitled get relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that to corroborate the said fact the complainant file several letter wherefrom it is evident that the complainant exercised his option for cancellation of the policy during the free look period. Thereby the complainant by filing the case has prayed for refund of the amount paid by him and also for cancellation of the policy, The complainant also sought for the compensation and the litigation cost.
Ld. Lawyer for the Ops submit that the complainant is an educated person and he was fully aware at the time of filling of the form for obtaining policy and terms and condition of the said policy was read by him and thereafter he put his signature on the form. It was further emphasized by the Ld. Lawyer for the Ops that the complainant paid Rs.49,000/- towards annual premium and in order to avoid the payment of annual premium the complainant built up such story that he exercised his option during free look period for cancellation of the policy. Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and as such the Ops prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the submission of the respective parties it appears that the complainant paid Rs.49,000/- with the expectation that the policy for the payment of one time premium and after receiving the policy the complainant during the free look period exercised his option for cancellation of the policy but the Ops did not accept the contention of the complainant for cancellation of the policy on the contrary sent a letter of intimation to the complainant asking for payment of the annual premium for the next year. The complainant realizing the ulterior motive of the Ops sent a lawyer’s letter and demanded the money paid by the complainant which was not replied by the Ops. Subsequently the complainant had to file this case, praying for return of the amount paid by him as well as the compensation. It is found that the complainant exercised his option during free look period but no action was taken on the part of the Ops for cancellation of the policy and also returned the amount paid by the complainant to the Ops towards the one time premium paid by him. Accordingly we hold that the Ops failed to follow the IRDA guide line for acceptance of the refusal of the policy after cancelling the policy and policy returned the money to the complainant. As such we hold that there was deficiency in service and or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs thus of this case disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered
that the case no.563/2015 is allowed on contest against both the parties. The complainant will be entitled get Rs.49,000/- paid by him and also to get Rs.5,000/- for compensation and Rs.2,000/- for litigation cost. OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount 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.
