ORDER | STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 15 of 2014 | Date of Institution | : | 10.01.2014 | Date of Decision | | 15/01/2014 | | Prem ……Appellant/complainant V e r s u s1.Max Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO 36-37-38, 1st/2nd 2. Max Life Insurance Company Limited, Operation Centre, 90-A, Udyog Vihar, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 (Haryana) Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: Argued by: PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. th he applied for cancellation of the Policy, on 28.08.2012, or that the reminders, referred to above, were sent by him, to the Opposite Parties. The letter dated 06.02.2013 (at page No.9 of the complainant’s documents) shows that the complainant himself informed the Opposite Parties that it was very unfortunate that the Agent had delivered above document (Policy No.871634440) on 24.01.2013, and it seemed that it was not forwarded to him (Chairman, Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) on 28.08.2012, through Local Office. He enclosed the Policy document, with his letter dated 06.02.2013. Since, the complainant sent the Policy document, vide letter dated 06.02.2013, to the Opposite Parties, the question of his sending the same, to them (Opposite Parties), vide letter dated 28.08.2012, did not at all arise. This factum also clearly disproves the contention of the complainant that he sent the Policy document, alongwith letter dated 28.08.2012, i.e. within the free-look period of 15 days, for cancellation of the same. Since, for the first time, the complainant sent request on 06.02.2013, for cancellation of the Policy, by sending the Policy document, the same (request) was certainly beyond 15 days of free-look period. Under these circumstances, the Opposite Parties were right, in declining the request of the complainant, for cancelling the Policy, in question, vide letter dated 26.02.2013. The Opposite Parties, by declining the request of the complainant, for the reasons, referred to above, therefore, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Pronounced. January 15, 2014 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg |