HON’BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS This complaint case has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by the Complainant against the OPs seeking several reliefs on the allegation of unfair trade practice and causing sufferings to her by the OPs. The case of the Complainant in short is that: On being allured by the agent / representative of the OPs, she agreed to purchase one policy by making one time premium to the OPs. Accordingly, the policy being No.505941781 dated 27.07.2018 was issued to her, on her paying a premium of Rs.1,53,375.08. The term of the policy was 6 years while guaranteed maturity sum assured was 9,35,765/-. She also signed a proposal form which was then blank in connection with the said policy. However, after going through the policy on receipt of the same, she found that she had to pay 6 more premium which was not possible for her and accordingly asked the agent of the OPs to cancel the said policy and to refund the premium paid by her. She issued a letter dated 10.08.2018, requesting the OPs to cancel her policy. Subsequently also on 02.01.2019, a reminder letter was also sent to the OPs, but they all along kept silent and did not reply to her letters. So, Complainant prayed for refund of the principal amount paid by her along with interest, compensation and cost of litigation. OPs submitted one written version, denying all the allegations of the Complainant. According to them, Complainant obtained the policy certificate from the OPs, knowing fully well about the terms and conditions of the Policy. This apart, they alleged that the Complainant did not exercise any option for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. So, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and filed documents. OPs filed questionnaire on the basis of the evidence of the Complainant to which replies were duly given. The parties also filed BNA. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION - Is the instant complainant maintainable?
- Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for?
FINDINGS Point No.(i): - During hearing on behalf of the OPs, no dispute was raised as to whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ or not, in fact, on the basis of materials on record and the nature of the complaint, Complainant is found to be a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. According to OPs, the complaint was filed after a period of 2 years and 11 months after the policy was received by her. From the materials, however, it is found that Complainant filed one separate application praying for condonation of delay. According to her, she got the policy on 27.07.2018 and the letter of cancellation was issued on 10.08.2018 and a reminder letter was also issued on 02.01.2019. Thereafter, due to sudden appearance of Covid-19 pandemic, she could not be able to file any complaint in connection with her case. That is why, she prayed for condonation of delay. We find, that the prayer was a bona fide one and that is why her prayer was allowed. On behalf of the OPs, it was argued that this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the Axis Bank, who is the agent of the Complainant was not made a party to this case. In this connection, we find that the main dispute is between the Complainant and the OPs The Axis Bank is not at all a necessary party to this case. Therefore, the instant complaint cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Point Nos.(ii) & (iii) : - Admittedly, the policy being No.505941781 dated 27.07.2018 was issued to the Complainant by the OPs and it was also received by her. According to the Complainant, the copy of the policy was delivered to her by two representatives of the OPs, while the Annexure – B the Complainant is said to be the request for cancellation of the policy. It is true that it is not clear as to how the letter of request was sent to the OPs. However, we find the Complainant claimed on receipt of the policy, she requested the agent of the OPs to cancel the policy during free look period which is admittedly 15 days from the date of receipt of this policy and she also issued formal letter requesting the OPs for cancellation of the policy, as it was not possible for her to pay premium for a period of further years. This letter of request also bears signature of the Complainant. On the other hand, OPs produced Annexure – D, which they claimed to be the letter of request for cancellation received by them from the Complainant but surprisingly this document does not bear any date at all. This point was also raised to the OPs . Despite that fact, no document could be shown by the OPs as to what is the date of this letter or when they got it. Annexure – E is the letter which the OPs claimed to have issued, informing the Complainant about rejection of her request for cancellation of the policy. Surprisingly enough, this letter is found to be a dated one which is mentioned as 5th July, 2021. We also find, Complainant produced another letter dated 02.01.2019, issuing a reminder to the OPs in connection with her earlier letter of request of cancellation dated 10.08.2018. In such circumstances, we are inclined to give more importance to the letter of request for cancellation dated 10.08.2018 which the Complainant claimed to have issued while requesting the agent of the OPs for cancellation. OPs heavily banked on ECS mandate signed by the Complainant, if, further transaction from the account is required. According to the , the contention of Complainant that she had no knowledge that she to pay premium for a further period of 5 years and it was not a one-time policy is a blatant lie in view of her signing of the ECS. Admittedly, ECS was signed by the Complainant and if the argument of the OPs as to the knowledge of the Complainant that she would have to pay for further subsequent years as well, is accepted, subsequent request for cancellationof the policy cannot be a lie, as much as ECS is found to have been signed on 25.07.2018, the proposal form for the policy and the free look period started after the receipt of the policy certificate by the Complainant, which according to the OPs on 01.08.2018. Again, despite the signed ECS, the question arose as to why the premium for 2nd year was not automatically deducted on the next due date. This non- deduction of premium for the 2nd year from the account of the Complainant also goes to support her claim that she cancelled the policy by making a request for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. OPs also could not produce a single paper showing any intimation having been issued to the Complainant for payment of the next premium. In their BNA, OPs claimed that several correspondences were exchanged between them and the Complainant between the period of issuance of the said policy and the request made for cancellation and refund of the said policy, but no request for cancellation was made during the free look period which is 15 days. But OPs failed to produce those correspondences between them and the Complainant from which it could be revealed that the request for cancellation of the policy was not at all made during the free look period. Therefore, this argument of having several correspondences between the parties has nothing to do herein with this case. So, following our observation and aforesaid discussion, we think that the Complainant should get relief(s) in this case. She is entitled to the refund of the amount she paid which is 1,53,375.08/- along with interest of the letter of request for cancellation of the policy. She is also entitled to cost of litigation. All the points are thus disposed of. Hence it is, ORDERED That the instant complaint be and the same is allowed on contest. OPs are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,53,375.08/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five and Eight paise only) along with interest @9% p.a. from 10.08.2018, until realization in full. OPs are also to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation to the Complainant. The aforesaid payment to be made by the OPs who are jointly and severally liable, within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Considering the amount of interest imposed, no separate amount is paid towards compensation is allowed. | 
