Fact of the case in short is that this Complainant has a Bank A/C bearing no.491010100004626 in O.P. no.2 / Bank.

O.P. no.1 is an insurance company and O.P. no.2 Bank is the corporate agent of O.P. no.1.

Mithun Bose and ProsenjitAdhikari agent of O.Ps.came to the house of the Complainant on 25-06-2011 and proposed him to take an Insurance Policy at an annual premium of Rs.50,000/- from O.P. no.1.

Complainant refused to take such LIC policy on several time but on the basis of repeated request made by O.P. no.2 on good faith took the LIC Policy bearing no.843102476 believing commitment made by the O.P. no.2 that he is to pay three (3) annual premium and will get return the entire money with dividends after six (6) years.

Thereafter, this Complainant came to know from his ex-student that the policy in question is a whole life policy and this Complainant is to pay premium of the said policy upto 40-years.

Thereafter, this Complainant enquired in to the matter and sent several letters to the O.P. No.1, requesting them to cancel the said policy and refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant to O.P. no.1 as premium; but this O.P. did not pay any heed.  So, thisComplainant has filed this case and prayed for making direction upon O.Ps. not to take                                                                                                      

any premium @ Rs.50,796.70 per year from the account of the Complainant lying with O.P. no.2 Bank.

Complainant has also made further prayer to pass order directing O.P. no.1 to refund amount all premiums as paid by the Complainant and also made prayer to pass award as compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for his  mental agony, harassment.

This Complainant is being contested by O.P. no.1 by filing W.V. denying all allegations as made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the Complainant is not maintainable to get the LIC Policy in question.

Complainant has taken the case LIC Policy after knowing its terms and condition voluntarily.

So, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                                                              Points of determination.

1)  Is the case maintainable ?

2)  Whether there was any unfair and deceptive trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. in the matter of issuing case LIC Policy in favour of the Complainant.

3)  Whether this Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

                                                               Points for Determinations.

Written argument has been filed by the Complainant.

Perused the same.  We have also carefully heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocate for both sides.  It appears that it is undisputed  that the Complainant took a LIC Policy no.8431024769 of O.P. no.1 and it is also undisputed that as per terms and condition of the said policy  the premium will be deducted annually @ Rs.50,000/- from the account bearing no.491010100004624 stands in the name of Complainant in O.P. no.2 Bank.

The dispute is that this Complainant was mis-represented by the agents of O.Ps. i.e. Mithun Bose and another in getting this LIC Policy and this Complainant has deposited three annual premiums in respect of the said LIC Policy; but this Complainant was informedby his ex-student on 05-10-2013 that the case policy is the whole life policy and premium of the policy is to be paid upto 40-years.

Complainant was convinced by Mithun Bose agent of the O.Ps. whomis-represented him stating inter alia that Complainant is to pay three annual premium then he will get back money with dividends after six (6) years.  So, believing this fact this Complainant purchased case LIC Policy.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued inter alia that Complainant was mis-represented in getting the case policy by the agent of the O.Ps.; if he had any knowledge that he had to pay premium of the said policy upto 40-years, then he could not purchased  the said policy.  Complainant made repeated request to the O.Ps. to return the premium paid by him against said case policy  and to cancel the said policy.So, O.Ps.did not pay any heeds.

In reply Ld. Advocate for the O.P. no.1 argued inter alia that Complainant is an educated person and he was well acquainted with the terms & condition of the case policy and no fraud practice or mis-representation was done upon Complainant.  He has also paid the premium of the policy.  So, this case will be dismissed.In support of his contention he has referred 2015 (1) CPR page 204 (NC).

So, it appears to us that this Complainant has taken plea that if he had any knowledge that the premium of the policy is to be paid upto 40-years then he could not take the said policy.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued inter alia by referring II (2008) CPJ page 43(SC) inter alia that Complainant has every right to dis-continue his policy and get back the premium paid against the said policy, at any time.

The decision referred by Ld. Advocate for Complainant will not come to any aid to him as fact of the decision and fact of this case are not identical.

So, it appears to us that the Complainant has alleged that fraud practice as well as mis-representation was done upon him by the agent of the O.Ps. in getting the case policy by saying that he will get back the money along with its dividend within six-years.

It appears from the materials on record that coverage insurance policy (Xerox copy) that this Complainant got LIC policy in question for coverage of Rs.6, 18,418/- and the annual premium was to be paid @ Rs.50, 796.70/- as it reveals from proposal form annexure – 1 filed by O.P. no.1.

It also reveals that this proposal form that same was signed by this Complainant.

No documents have been filed by the Complainant to show that he has lodged complaint against the O.P. stating that he was mis-represented and fraud practice was done upon him in getting the case policy by O.Ps.

Moreover, he has paid three annual premiums against the said policy.  So, it will be presumed that he has paid the premium of case policy knowing its terms & condition.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015(1) CPR page 204(NC) inter alia that “ Petitioner is a highly educated person.  Who has availed TATA AIG Life Invest Assure Flexi Plan policy – It is presumed that such a well-educated person would exercise due caution and diligence as also ensure that he is well informed of benefits and terms and conditions before taking such a policy for Rs.10 Lakhs and before paying fourteen quarterly premiums – His plea that he could not see policy papers as he had left for China, cannot give him right and option to cancel policy three and a half years after receipt of policy and expiry of free look period of 15-days – Revision Petition dismissed.”

It is undisputed that Complainant is an educated person.  So, it will be presumed that this Complainant being and educated person would exercise due caution and diligence before taking policy.  So, the plea taken by Complainant after expiry of free look period of case policy about refund of premiums cannot be entertained.

Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter of fraud practice or mis-representation in getting case policy as alleged by the Complainant against O.P.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National commission reported in 2015(2) CPR page 60 (NC) that CPC 1986 – Section 17 & 21 – Jurisdiction – Banking Service – Deficiency in service – Complicated and intricate question of forgery, mis-representation and settlement of accounts – Held – Civil in nature dispute which required elaborate  evidence and.

Hon’ble National Commission was also pleased to dismiss the complaint.

In view of the above observation of the Hon’ble National commission we are inclined to hold that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of fraud practice or mis-representation and this Complainant is to approach to the Civil Courts or proper Forum as per law for getting such relief.

So, in view of observation of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (1) CPR page 204 (NC) that unless and until fraud practice and mis-representation is decided by proper Court then it will be presumed that this Complainant took the case LIC Policy after knowing it’s terms & conditions.

No documents have been filed by the Complainant to prove that there is a provision for getting back the premium paid by the Complainant to O.P. when like to dis-continue the impugned LIC Policy after expiry of free look period of case policy.

Moreover, O.P. no.1 informed Complainant by sending letter on 02-02-2013 to him that expressing their inability to cancel the case policy and refund the amount as premium after expiry of free look period.

It has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2016 (1) CPR page 510 (NC)  inter alia that insurance is a mutual contract between two parties and terms & condition of such contract have to be construed and to be appliedstrictly.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we are of the opinion that both sides are bound by the terms & condition of the case impugned policy.

There is nothing in the case impugned policy as terms & condition that the premium paid by the policy holder would be refunded as and when policy will be dis-continued as per prayer of the policy holder.

In view of the above facts & circumstances discussions made above we hold that Complainant is not entitled to refund premiums paid against the case LIC Policy.

We found from the materials on record that Complainant expressed his intention to dis-continue his LIC Policy and he has also made prayer that the O.P. should be asked not to deduct any amount from his account lying with the O.P. no.2 Bank as premium of the impugned LIC Policy.

We found that every person has liberty / right to dis-continue his LIC Policy and in such case Insurer has got no authority to deduct any amount from the account of the policy holder or insist him to deposit premium of the policy.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we hold that if O.Ps.are directed not to deduct any amount from the account of the Complainant; then none would be prejudiced.

So, we hold that Complainant is not entitled to refund any amount of premium paid by him for case LIC Policy.  But he is entitled to stop deduction amount of premium from his Account lying in O.P. no.2 Bank.

In view of the above facts & circumstances we do not like to award any amount as compensation for mental harassment and agony; as Complainant has not been able to prove his case about refund of amount of premium.

Hence, it is

                                                                                  Ordered

That the Compliant Case no.106 of 2014 is hereby allowed in part ; but without cost.

O.Ps. are hereby directed to not to deduct any amount as annual premium of the caseLIC Policy bearing no.843102476 of Complainant; henceforth from the A/c No.491010100004624 stands in the name of Complainant, without hiswritten consent.

Complaint is hereby dismissed in respect of the other prayers made by the Complainant ; but without cost.

If the O.P. fails to comply with the direction made above then Complainant is at liberty to get the order implemented with due course of law.

Complainant is given liberty to avail legal remedy by approaching before the appropriate Forum / Court having jurisdiction as per law in respect his grievances about fraud, mis-representation, etc.

Let a plain copy of this Judgment be supplies to the parties free of cost.