Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that  on 15.03.2018 one Vikrant Awasthi called the father of the complainant and asked him that they will withdraw his policy of Max Life Insurance bearing No.757696711 which was lapsed amounting to  Rs.1,83,000/-, but for this purpose a sum of Rs.30,000/-   be deposited as security. On the assurance of the said Vikrant Awasthi, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.30,000/- on 20.03.2018 through his credit card and after that 15 days were given for the return of the money and they also received cancelled cheque of the complainant and his father. After the issuance of the this policy bearing No.01428237 dated 23.03.2018 they opened a code WA 291326. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties gave time of 15 days to the Complainant for the return of the money but when no amount was credited, then the Complainant made call to the concerned person who told that in the policy of his father, an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- is lying and at that time, the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to withdraw the amount of policy of max Life Insrance and the Complainant must purchase a policy of Rs.95,000/- and the Complainant paid the same and on receipt of this amount, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued a policy bearing No. 01439237 dated 26.04.2018. After 15-20 days, they again started calling to Complainant and he assured the Complainant to return the payment after 15-20 days, but they did not send the payment. After that one day, they called the Complainant to prepare digital cards as the payment was more than Rs.5 lakhs and for this purpose, he must pay Rs.1,60,000/- and according, the Complainant paid the same and for this amount, they issued him a policy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance bearing No.5326309 dated 5.7.2018 through online payment on 2.7.2018 vide transaction ID 02173018. When the Complainant asked for the policy of Rs.1,60,000/- and digital cards, they answered  that digital cards were made through this policy, but after some time, they sent him two cards bearing numbers 4591-7700-0136-9898 and 5126-5201-3322-3377 and told that all the payments  will be made through these cards, but these cards were not despatched. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties asked to the Complainant to deposit rs.1,70,000/-, but the Complainant refused and at that Mr.Vikrant Awasthi called the Complainant in his office and pressurized to deposit the same otherwise his entire amount will be usurp by the insurance company and on this, the Complainant paid Rs.1,70,000/- to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and then Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued three policies i.e. first policy bearing No. 01465787 dated 22.9.2018 for Rs.99,133/-, second policy bearing No.01466883 dated 27.09.2018 for Rs.49,016/- in favour of  sister of the Complainant and third policy bearing No.1466885 dated 28.09.2018 for Rs.20,848/- and these policies were issued by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 against the receipt of payment of Rs.1,70,000/-. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  gave 3-45 days time to return his payment, but to no affect, rather the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to open an insurance account and for this the Complainant must be paid Rs.1,30,000/- and  on this, the Complainant paid the same through HDFC Bank online. This payment was received by the Opposite Parties for payment of second premium of policies No.01428237 and 01439237 respectively. In this way, the payment of R.4,24,062/- was given to the Opposite Parties on account of purchase of five separate policies. Thereafter,  the Complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.4,24,062/- alongwith interest upto date, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. In this way, the Opposite Parties have played a fraud with the Complainant and grabbed his amount on account of withdrawing amount of old policy of his father. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.         Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of investment and to pay  Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission,  may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of his grievances.

2.       On notice,  none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 and hence, Opposite Party No.4 was  proceeded against exparte. Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint;  that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on ground that the Complainant has exaggerated the amount paid by him to the OP Company and prayer amount in the complaint. The complainant and his Sister have only paid a sum of Rs. 228479/- to the OP company for all four policies  but he has alleged that he has paid Rs. 4,25,000/-. These allegations are without any proof and are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the complainant has cooked a false story to mislead this District Commission  and to extort money from the respondent company.  Further alleges that  One Policy bearing policy no 01466883 has been purchased by Gurcharn Kaur who as per the complainant is his Sister. But the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint with respect to policy no. 01466883 as he is neither the Proposer nor the life assured under the policy. The complainant has raised some very serious allegations in the complaint without substantiating with any documentary proof. The entire complaint is based on surmises and conjectures and thus deserves no other fate but an outright dismissal. It is further submitted that this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. That in the present Complaint the Complainant has alleged Fraud, Cheating, Misselling and Misrepresentation and has alleged that amount was withdrawn from Max Life Insurance Policies, Some Cards Digital Cards of SBI were issued, GST Deposits and various other allegations. He has further alleged that time and again he has paid certain amounts at different occasions and has also named many people in the complaint like one Vikrant Awasthi, Mr. Aggarwal etc but non have been made a party in the complaint. The OP Company has although received Rs. 228479/- for all four policies  from the complainant and all the other payments as alleged in the complaint are denied. Such serious allegations require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in a summary trial. It is clear from the averments made in the Complaint that the Complainant has made such allegations; such matter in question involves complicated questions of facts and law as well as voluminous evidence, which can only be dealt with by a civil court. Further this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the party of the replying Opposite Party. Deficiency is defined under section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance; which is required to be maintained in pursuance of a contract. In the present case, the OP has strictly acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract. That the terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract.  Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution.  That the Forum cannot pass any order in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy contract. The law in this regard is very well settled and one may conveniently refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 567]. The same has also been clearly stated in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Madhavacharya (Revision petition no: 211 of 2009), wherein it was held by the National Commission that “Since the insurance between the insurer and the insured is a contract between the parties, the terms of the agreement including applicability of the provision and also its exclusion had to be strictly construed to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer”. In the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test of deficiency in service by stating that “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.” That the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the terms of  the policy contract  if  the  policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get  his/her  policy  reviewed by  returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (Free Look Period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. In the present case, The Policies were sent to the complainant and the same was delivered on The complainant after the receipt of the subject policies and policy documents did not approach the replying OP and got his subject policies reviewed/cancelled within Free Look period implying that the complainant duly accepted the subject policies and its documents with its terms and conditions. The complainant never approached the replying opp. party with any grievance pertaining to the subject policies and its terms and conditions and straight away filed the present complaint. The complainant is now estopped from raising the issues/ grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policy. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given up /relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. That the opposite party as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002, sent the policies and policy documents along with the copy of the proposal forms to the complainant giving him opportunity to review/cancel the policy within freelook period. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on at the address of the complainant and same was received by the complainant, which is also not disputed in the present complaint. Despite receipt of the policy and policy documents, the complainant failed to approach the opposite party within free look period making any grievance with respect to the policy or its terms and conditions, implying the policy and its terms and conditions were duly accepted by the complainant and were in order. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given-up/relinquish/waived his right by not exercising the freelook provision. The complainant  is now estopped from raising the issues / grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policies. The applicant is bound by the policy contract and given up / relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the application is devoid of any merit and  is liable to be dismissed. That the Complainant has raised some very serious allegations against the Answering O.P. without substantiating with any documentary proof. The entire complaint is based on surmises and conjectures and thus deserves no other fate but an outright dismissal. That it is pertinent to mention there in that Future Generali Life Insurance Company is a Life Insurance company which issues life insurance policies. Also Future Generali Life Insurance Company is not a financial institution which provides loan, bonus, etc. Further, the Complainant was taking policy from the Company which is altogether independent of other life insurance companies like Max Life Insurance and Reliance Nippon Life Insurance as alleged. It is submitted that Future Generali Life Insurance Company is a separate entity legally as well as otherwise and has nothing to do with the business conducted by other companies, institutions or agents. That it is further submitted that Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd has a separate legal, financial and administrative set up from that of other life insurance companies, agents and brokers. That it is a settled principle of law that if any person signs a document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. That it is further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that person who fills up anything on a signed document has status of ‘amanuensis’ only and cannot be treated as author of document. At the time of scribing (without admitting) the person who scribes (amanuensis) is treated as representative of person who has signed document and not the representative of the Company, thus after signing the document the person cannot release from signed document and lead anything which is contrary to terms stated in written document. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the premium under the subject policy. The complainant enjoyed the benefit under the subject policies and now seeks to wriggle out from the same and also claiming the refund of the premium paid under the policy. The complainant continued to enjoy the benefit under the subject policy. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled “LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Siba Prasad Das &Ors.” reported in IV(2008) CPJ 156 (NC) has held that: “We are unable to appreciate as to on what ground the District Forum and State Commission could direct refund of premium? The premium is given by an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period of which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given. If after that the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of the policy or law, could any court/forum direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period of which premium had been paid.” That, the Complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subjected Life Insurance Policies and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP  have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The answering OP submits that these are serious allegations of misrepresentation which may not be decided under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as against the answering respondent. The Complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. That it is further submitted that the Op Company after the receipt of the proposal forms, and supporting documents life age proof, address proof etc issued the policy to the complainants. Additionally the complainant signed the documents containing the premium rates for the policies and made declaration that the complainant had read and understood the contents of the document and accepted the same. Furthermore, it is submitted that the complainant has received the policy documents and now with the intention to wriggle out of his contractual obligation and with a view to take undue advantage of the company he has filed the present complaint. Further more the complainant has also put his signatures on the application form on the declaration and authorization para where it is stated that he has understood the nature and contents of questions asked in the proposal form. Further, in light of the Judgement passed by the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Siba Prasad Dash, IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC), since risk was covered for the period for which premium was paid, hence there is no question of a premium refund after the policy has lapsed. Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 too does not permit extending insurance coverage where premiums have not been duly paid. Further, since the complainant is an educated individual, it is presumed that he would have gone through the contents of the proposal form before signing on the same. Further, a bare perusal of the policy terms and conditions, would clearly demonstrate that no such policy benefits are contained therein as have been alleged by the complainant to have been promised to him. The Complainant has not acted in good faith with respect to subject of this Complaint and has approached the Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands, hence in view of doctrine - “One who seeks equity must come with clean hands”, the complaint deserves no fate other than outright dismissal. The complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subject Life Insurance Policy and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering respondent have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The complainant or his Sister has not paid the next due premiums due for the Policy No. 01465787, 01466883 (Sisters Policy), 01466885 which was to be paid accordingly the policies have lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is important to note that for policy bearing no 01428237, the complainant has also paid  renewal premium under the captioned policy  which clearly shows he very well knew about the policy terms and cannot at this stage claim that the policy was mis-sold to him after paying the renewal premium. This clearly shows that the present complaint is just an afterthought. But for policy no 01428237 after the second premium payment the complainant has stopped making the premium payments hence the policy has lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is submitted that the complainant has not obtained the policy through any of agents/employees of answering respondents. For obtaining the policy in question, the policy holder had availed the services of an independent Broker i.e. North India Finserve Ltd.  An Insurance Broker is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), who advise their customers on their insurance needs and thereafter arrange insurance policy from any insurance company as per their own judgment and as per the customer’s choice. It is to be noted that the Insurance Companies do not enjoy any administrative control over the Insurance Brokers. All Insurance brokers are governed by the provisions of IRDA (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2002 and IRDA also entertain applications against Insurance Brokers. It is a settled principle of law that at the time of filling-up the proposal form, the agent acts as agent of insured and not of insurance company. No agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answer in the proposal form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the proposal form does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that if any person signs any document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent’s authority. The Supreme Court has held in Sitaram v/s Santanu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1697, that a master is vicariously liable for the acts of the servant acting in the course of his employment. For the master’s liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act done through a mode authorized by the master, or a wrongful or unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master. The act must be done only in the course of employment or in the scope of the agent’s authority. The Respondent Company does not authorize any of its agents to offer any such false promises or benefits to its customers, which are at variance with its product features, and assuming without admitting, that such false promises were made by any agent of the Company, the same would fall beyond the scope of the agent’s authority, and the Company would not be vicariously liable for the same. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent’s authority. That, the Complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subjected Life Insurance Policy and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering respondents have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The Answering respondent submits that these are serious allegations of misrepresentation which may not be decided under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence it is prayed that the District Consumer Commission may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as against the answering respondent. The Complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the answering respondent in present case, and the answering respondent is not a necessary or a proper party to present dispute, accordingly present complaint ought to be dismissed against the answering respondent. That the Complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act. Further submits that the complainant and Gurcharan Kaur had submitted proposals for Insurance with the respondent company, details of which are given below: -

It is pertinent to note here that the Company   prior to issuance of the policy have collected ITR copies of the policy Holder for FY 2018-2019 which clearly mentions the premium paying capacity of the Policy Holder. The Opposite Parties after receipt of duly filled proposal forms along with the other requisite documents and the amount of first yearly premiums deposit had issued the subject Policies. That the Complainant had him self opted for Yearly/Annual premium which clearly indicated in the proposal form. The policy term has been clearly shown as 18-20 Years and Premium Payment term of 10-12 Years as per proposal forms submitted by the complainant and Gurcharn Kaur. That the OP Company further states that it has put in place a mechanism namely Pre Issuance Verification Call (hereinafter referred to as “PIVC”) prior to issuing the policy and the core objective of this exercise is to confirm and satisfy at the Company’s end that the policyholder has understood the key features of the policy without any ambiguity and has no grievance in this regard. In the present case as well, the Company had conducted PIVC call and the Complainant/policyholder did not raise any concern or issue and was in complete agreement with the terms and conditions of the policies That in accordance to Clause 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case Policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and condition of the policy he can withdraw/ return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look period” provision.  The respondent further submits that as per Regulation 4(1) of the IRDA Regulation a copy of the proposal form duly signed by the Policy holder is also sent to the policy holder and was duly received along with the policy document thereby giving an opportunity to the Policyholder to understand the terms and conditions and approach the company if any discrepancy.  It is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that the policyholder retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. It is submitted that the complainant/ policyholder had not approached the respondents during the free look period or even after that with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that the complainant/ policyholder agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. Further alleges that in this case also a copy of proposal forms were sent along with the policy documents to the policyholder. It is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Forum that the Complainant/policyholder retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. That it is submitted that the Policy holder had not approached the answering Op’s party during the free look period with any grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that, the Policy holder agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. That a bare perusal of the policy terms and conditions would clearly demonstrate that they contain no such benefits as have been alleged by the complainant to have been promised to him, and the policy has been issued strictly in accordance with the proposal form duly signed by the policyholder. That it is pertinent to mention here that the policies were delivered in the year 2018 itself and till date the policy holders have not raised any complaint with respect to the policy except for the present consumer complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. That the complainant /policyholder has not paid the next due premiums due for the Policy No. 01465787, 01466883 (Sisters Policy), 01466885 which was to be paid accordingly the policies have lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is important to note that for policy bearing no 01428237, the complainant has paid one renewal premium which clearly shows he very well knew about the policy terms and cannot at this stage claim that the policy was mis-sold to him after paying the renewal premium. This clearly shows that the present complaint is just an afterthought. But for policy no 01428237 after the second premium payment the complainant has stopped making the premium payments hence the policy has lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. That Insurance being a contract between the Policyholder and the Company and both are governed by the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Policy Document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions. In view of the above the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 5 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against Opposite Parties.               

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17, additional affidavit Ex.C18, envelop containing  3 CDs Ex.C19 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 5 also tendered  into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vishal Kumar Ex.Ops 1,2,3,5/1 alongwith copy of proposal form Ex.Ops1,2,3,5/2 to Ex.Ops1,2,3,5/5, copy of ITR Ex.Ops1,2,3,5/6, copy of terms and conditions Ex.Ops1,2,3,5/7 to Ex.Ops1,2,3,5/10 and  and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 5. 

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by the complainant  and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 15.03.2018 one Vikrant Awasthi called the father of the complainant and asked him that they will withdraw his policy of Max Life Insurance bearing No.757696711 which was lapsed amounting to  Rs.1,83,000/-, but for this purpose a sum of Rs.30,000/-   be deposited as security. On the assurance of the said Vikrant Awasthi, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.30,000/- on 20.03.2018 through his credit card and after that 15 days were given for the return of the money and they also received cancelled cheque of the complainant and his father. After the issuance of the this policy bearing No.01428237 dated 23.03.2018 they opened a code WA 291326. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties gave time of 15 days to the Complainant for the return of the money but when no amount was credited, then the Complainant made call to the concerned person who told that in the policy of his father, an amount of Rs.2,83,000/- is lying and at that time, the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to withdraw the amount of policy of max Life Insrance and the Complainant must purchase a policy of Rs.95,000/- and the Complainant paid the same and on receipt of this amount, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued a policy bearing No. 01439237 dated 26.04.2018. After 15-20 days, they again started calling to Complainant and he assured the Complainant to return the payment after 15-20 days, but they did not send the payment. After that one day, they called the Complainant to prepare digital cards as the payment was more than Rs.5 lakhs and for this purpose, he must pay Rs.1,60,000/- and according, the Complainant paid the same and for this amount, they issued him a policy of Reliance Nippon Life Insurance bearing No.5326309 dated 5.7.2018 through online payment on 2.7.2018 vide transaction ID 02173018. When the Complainant asked for the policy of Rs.1,60,000/- and digital cards, they answered  that digital cards were made through this policy, but after some time, they sent him two cards bearing numbers 4591-7700-0136-9898 and 5126-5201-3322-3377 and told that all the payments  will be made through these cards, but these cards were not despatched. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties asked to the Complainant to deposit rs.1,70,000/-, but the Complainant refused and at that Mr.Vikrant Awasthi called the Complainant in his office and pressurized to deposit the same otherwise his entire amount will be usurp by the insurance company and on this, the Complainant paid Rs.1,70,000/- to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and then Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued three policies i.e. first policy bearing No. 01465787 dated 22.9.2018 for Rs.99,133/-, second policy bearing No.01466883 dated 27.09.2018 for Rs.49,016/- in favour of  sister of the Complainant and third policy bearing No.1466885 dated 28.09.2018 for Rs.20,848/- and these policies were issued by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 against the receipt of payment of Rs.1,70,000/-. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties  gave 3-45 days time to return his payment, but to no affect, rather the Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to open an insurance account and for this the Complainant must be paid Rs.1,30,000/- and  on this, the Complainant paid the same through HDFC Bank online. This payment was received by the Opposite Parties for payment of second premium of policies No.01428237 and 01439237 respectively. In this way, the payment of R.4,24,062/- was given to the Opposite Parties on account of purchase of five separate policies. Thereafter,  the Complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.4,24,062/- alongwith interest upto date, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant. In this way, the Opposite Parties have played a fraud with the Complainant and grabbed his amount on account of withdrawing amount of old policy of his father. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1, 2, 3 and 5  has repelled the aforesaid contention of ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on ground that the Complainant has exaggerated the amount paid by him to the OP Company and prayer amount in the complaint. The complainant and his Sister have only paid a sum of Rs. 228479/- to the OP company for all four policies  but he has alleged that he has paid Rs. 4,25,000/-. These allegations are without any proof and are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is submitted that the complainant has cooked a false story to mislead this Hon’ble Forum and to extort money from the respondent company.  Further alleges that  One Policy bearing policy no 01466883 has been purchased by Gurcharn Kaur who as per the complainant is his Sister. But the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint with respect to policy no. 01466883 as he is neither the Proposer nor the life assured under the policy. The complainant has raised some very serious allegations in the complaint without substantiating with any documentary proof. The entire complaint is based on surmises and conjectures and thus deserves no other fate but an outright dismissal. It is further submitted that this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Complaint. That in the present Complaint the Complainant has alleged Fraud, Cheating, Misselling and Misrepresentation and has alleged that amount was withdrawn from Max Life Insurance Policies, Some Cards Digital Cards of SBI were issued, GST Deposits and various other allegations. He has further alleged that time and again he has paid certain amounts at different occasions and has also named many people in the complaint like one Vikrant Awasthi, Mr. Aggarwal etc but non have been made a party in the complaint. The OP Company has although received Rs. 228479/- for all four policies  from the complainant and all the other payments as alleged in the complaint are denied. Such serious allegations require a proper trial by a civil/criminal court and evidence has to be taken which is not possible in a summary trial. It is clear from the averments made in the Complaint that the Complainant has made such allegations; such matter in question involves complicated questions of facts and law as well as voluminous evidence, which can only be dealt with by a civil court. Further this District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Complainant has failed to demonstrate any deficiency in service on the party of the replying Opposite Party. Deficiency is defined under section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance; which is required to be maintained in pursuance of a contract. In the present case, the OP has strictly acted as per the terms and conditions of the policy contract. That the terms of the policy are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be made in accordance with the strict construction of the contract.  Thus, the words in an insurance contract must be given paramount importance and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution.  That the Forum cannot pass any order in contravention to the terms and conditions of the policy contract. The law in this regard is very well settled and one may conveniently refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 567]. The same has also been clearly stated in the case of Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Madhavacharya (Revision petition no: 211 of 2009), wherein it was held by the National Commission that “Since the insurance between the insurer and the insured is a contract between the parties, the terms of the agreement including applicability of the provision and also its exclusion had to be strictly construed to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer”. In the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the test of deficiency in service by stating that “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.” That the present complaint is not maintainable. As per the terms of  the policy contract  if  the  policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get  his/her  policy  reviewed by  returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (Free Look Period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. In the present case, The Policies were sent to the complainant and the same was delivered on The complainant after the receipt of the subject policies and policy documents did not approach the replying OP and got his subject policies reviewed/cancelled within Free Look period implying that the complainant duly accepted the subject policies and its documents with its terms and conditions. The complainant never approached the replying opp. party with any grievance pertaining to the subject policies and its terms and conditions and straight away filed the present complaint. The complainant is now estopped from raising the issues/ grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policy. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given up /relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. That the opposite party as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002, sent the policies and policy documents along with the copy of the proposal forms to the complainant giving him opportunity to review/cancel the policy within freelook period. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on at the address of the complainant and same was received by the complainant, which is also not disputed in the present complaint. Despite receipt of the policy and policy documents, the complainant failed to approach the opposite party within free look period making any grievance with respect to the policy or its terms and conditions, implying the policy and its terms and conditions were duly accepted by the complainant and were in order. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given-up/relinquish/waived his right by not exercising the freelook provision. The complainant  is now estopped from raising the issues / grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policies. The applicant is bound by the policy contract and given up / relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the application is devoid of any merit and  is liable to be dismissed. That the Complainant has raised some very serious allegations against the Answering O.P. without substantiating with any documentary proof. The entire complaint is based on surmises and conjectures and thus deserves no other fate but an outright dismissal. That it is pertinent to mention there in that Future Generali Life Insurance Company is a Life Insurance company which issues life insurance policies. Also Future Generali Life Insurance Company is not a financial institution which provides loan, bonus, etc. Further, the Complainant was taking policy from the Company which is altogether independent of other life insurance companies like Max Life Insurance and Reliance Nippon Life Insurance as alleged. It is submitted that Future Generali Life Insurance Company is a separate entity legally as well as otherwise and has nothing to do with the business conducted by other companies, institutions or agents. That it is further submitted that Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd has a separate legal, financial and administrative set up from that of other life insurance companies, agents and brokers. That it is a settled principle of law that if any person signs a document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. That it is further submitted that it is a well settled principle of law that person who fills up anything on a signed document has status of ‘amanuensis’ only and cannot be treated as author of document. At the time of scribing (without admitting) the person who scribes (amanuensis) is treated as representative of person who has signed document and not the representative of the Company, thus after signing the document the person cannot release from signed document and lead anything which is contrary to terms stated in written document. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any refund of the premium under the subject policy. The complainant enjoyed the benefit under the subject policies and now seeks to wriggle out from the same and also claiming the refund of the premium paid under the policy. The complainant continued to enjoy the benefit under the subject policy. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled “LIC of India & Ors. Vs. Siba Prasad Das &Ors.” reported in IV(2008) CPJ 156 (NC) has held that: “We are unable to appreciate as to on what ground the District Forum and State Commission could direct refund of premium? The premium is given by an insured, to cover the risk for a given period, and the insurer covers the risk for the period of which the premium has been paid. It is not the case of the complainant that the risk was not covered for the period for which the premium was given. If after that the policy lapsed, under no provision of terms of the policy or law, could any court/forum direct for refund of any premium for the simple reason, as already stated, that the risk stood covered for the period of which premium had been paid.” That, the Complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subjected Life Insurance Policies and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering OP  have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The answering OP submits that these are serious allegations of misrepresentation which may not be decided under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as against the answering respondent. The Complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.That it is further submitted that the Op Company after the receipt of the proposal forms, and supporting documents life age proof, address proof etc issued the policy to the complainants. Additionally the complainant signed the documents containing the premium rates for the policies and made declaration that the complainant had read and understood the contents of the document and accepted the same. Furthermore, it is submitted that the complainant has received the policy documents and now with the intention to wriggle out of his contractual obligation and with a view to take undue advantage of the company he has filed the present complaint. Further more the complainant has also put his signatures on the application form on the declaration and authorization para where it is stated that he has understood the nature and contents of questions asked in the proposal form. Further, in light of the Judgement passed by the National Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Siba Prasad Dash, IV (2008) CPJ 156 (NC), since risk was covered for the period for which premium was paid, hence there is no question of a premium refund after the policy has lapsed. Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 too does not permit extending insurance coverage where premiums have not been duly paid. Further, since the complainant is an educated individual, it is presumed that he would have gone through the contents of the proposal form before signing on the same. Further, a bare perusal of the policy terms and conditions, would clearly demonstrate that no such policy benefits are contained therein as have been alleged by the complainant to have been promised to him. The Complainant has not acted in good faith with respect to subject of this Complaint and has approached the Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands, hence in view of doctrine - “One who seeks equity must come with clean hands”, the complaint deserves no fate other than outright dismissal. The complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subject Life Insurance Policy and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering respondent have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The complainant or his Sister has not paid the next due premiums due for the Policy No. 01465787, 01466883 (Sisters Policy), 01466885 which was to be paid accordingly the policies have lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is important to note that for policy bearing no 01428237, the complainant has also paid  renewal premium under the captioned policy  which clearly shows he very well knew about the policy terms and cannot at this stage claim that the policy was mis-sold to him after paying the renewal premium. This clearly shows that the present complaint is just an afterthought. But for policy no 01428237 after the second premium payment the complainant has stopped making the premium payments hence the policy has lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is submitted that the complainant has not obtained the policy through any of agents/employees of answering respondents. For obtaining the policy in question, the policy holder had availed the services of an independent Broker i.e. North India Finserve Ltd.  An Insurance Broker is an independent entity licensed by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA), who advise their customers on their insurance needs and thereafter arrange insurance policy from any insurance company as per their own judgment and as per the customer’s choice. It is to be noted that the Insurance Companies do not enjoy any administrative control over the Insurance Brokers. All Insurance brokers are governed by the provisions of IRDA (Insurance Brokers) Regulations, 2002 and IRDA also entertain applications against Insurance Brokers. It is a settled principle of law that at the time of filling-up the proposal form, the agent acts as agent of insured and not of insurance company. No agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answer in the proposal form. If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the proposal form does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Further, it is also a settled principle of law that if any person signs any document, it is presumed that he/she has signed the same after reading and understanding it properly. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent’s authority. The Supreme Court has held in Sitaram v/s Santanu Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1697, that a master is vicariously liable for the acts of the servant acting in the course of his employment. For the master’s liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act done through a mode authorized by the master, or a wrongful or unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master. The act must be done only in the course of employment or in the scope of the agent’s authority. The Respondent Company does not authorize any of its agents to offer any such false promises or benefits to its customers, which are at variance with its product features, and assuming without admitting, that such false promises were made by any agent of the Company, the same would fall beyond the scope of the agent’s authority, and the Company would not be vicariously liable for the same. Further, it is a settled principle of law that a principal can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent’s authority. That, the Complainant has sought a relief from this District Consumer Commission which he is not entitled to get under the terms and conditions of the subjected Life Insurance Policy and as such no deficiency in services on the part of the answering respondents have been demonstrated by the Complainant. The Answering respondent submits that these are serious allegations of misrepresentation which may not be decided under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence it is prayed that the District Consumer Commission may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint as against the answering respondent. The Complaint deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. There is no deficiency in service rendered by the answering respondent in present case, and the answering respondent is not a necessary or a proper party to present dispute, accordingly present complaint ought to be dismissed against the answering respondent. That the Complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act. Further submits that the complainant and Gurcharan Kaur had submitted proposals for Insurance with the respondent company, details of which are given below: -

It is pertinent to note here that the Company   prior to issuance of the policy have collected ITR copies of the policy Holder for FY 2018-2019 which clearly mentions the premium paying capacity of the Policy Holder. The Opposite Parties after receipt of duly filled proposal forms along with the other requisite documents and the amount of first yearly premiums deposit had issued the subject Policies. That the Complainant had him self opted for Yearly/Annual premium which clearly indicated in the proposal form. The policy term has been clearly shown as 18-20 Years and Premium Payment term of 10-12 Years as per proposal forms submitted by the complainant and Gurcharn Kaur. That the OP Company further states that it has put in place a mechanism namely Pre Issuance Verification Call (hereinafter referred to as “PIVC”) prior to issuing the policy and the core objective of this exercise is to confirm and satisfy at the Company’s end that the policyholder has understood the key features of the policy without any ambiguity and has no grievance in this regard. In the present case as well, the Company had conducted PIVC call and the Complainant/policyholder did not raise any concern or issue and was in complete agreement with the terms and conditions of the policies That in accordance to Clause 6 (2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests) Regulations, 2002 every policy document sent by it is accompanied by a forwarding letter which clearly mentions that in case Policyholder is not satisfied with the features or the terms and condition of the policy he can withdraw/ return the policy within 15 days i.e. under the “Free Look period” provision.  The respondent further submits that as per Regulation 4(1) of the IRDA Regulation a copy of the proposal form duly signed by the Policy holder is also sent to the policy holder and was duly received along with the policy document thereby giving an opportunity to the Policyholder to understand the terms and conditions and approach the company if any discrepancy.  It is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Court that the policyholder retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. It is submitted that the complainant/ policyholder had not approached the respondents during the free look period or even after that with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that the complainant/ policyholder agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. Further alleges that in this case also a copy of proposal forms were sent along with the policy documents to the policyholder. It is pertinent to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble Forum that the Complainant/policyholder retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy. That it is submitted that the Policy holder had not approached the answering Op’s party during the free look period with any grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. Meaning thereby that, the Policy holder agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. That a bare perusal of the policy terms and conditions would clearly demonstrate that they contain no such benefits as have been alleged by the complainant to have been promised to him, and the policy has been issued strictly in accordance with the proposal form duly signed by the policyholder. That it is pertinent to mention here that the policies were delivered in the year 2018 itself and till date the policy holders have not raised any complaint with respect to the policy except for the present consumer complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. That the complainant /policyholder has not paid the next due premiums due for the Policy No. 01465787, 01466883 (Sisters Policy), 01466885 which was to be paid accordingly the policies have lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. It is important to note that for policy bearing no 01428237, the complainant has paid one renewal premium which clearly shows he very well knew about the policy terms and cannot at this stage claim that the policy was mis-sold to him after paying the renewal premium. This clearly shows that the present complaint is just an afterthought. But for policy no 01428237 after the second premium payment the complainant has stopped making the premium payments hence the policy has lapsed and in case he doesn’t pay further premiums the policies will be terminated as per policy terms and conditions. That Insurance being a contract between the Policyholder and the Company and both are governed by the Terms and Conditions mentioned in the Policy Document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions and in view of the above the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.       We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. In this contention, the Complainant has nowhere denied the

9.       The main plea raised by the Opposite Parties  is that after admitting the terms and condition the Complainant has purchased the insurance policies in question. On the other hand, the Complainant has nowhere denied this factum of knowledge of the terms and conditions and hence at this stage, the Complainant can not wriggle out from its agreement. Moreover,  the complainant was given the entire knowledge about the terms and conditions and that being happily agreed and purchased the product, wherein it was clearly agreed upon that once the product is sold, can not be returned back and as such there will be no refund and this version has nowhere denied by the Complainant by filing any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the Complainant never accepted such  terms and conditions of the Opposite Party  while purchase the policies in question.  In this regard, we find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion. It is well settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, and none of the parties can seek any relief beyond those terms and conditions. In this regard reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another, 2011 CTJ 11 (Supreme Court) (CP) wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, held that:-

“22.     Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity………..”

“24.     Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”

The facts and circumstances of the instant case are fully attracted to Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd case (Supra). Same view has also been expressed by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in  First Appeal No.485 of 2019 in case  Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Versus Atma Singh, decided recently on 11.11.2021.

10.     Moreover, there was sufficient time with the Complainant to get cancel the policies in question within free look period of 15 days after the receipt of the policies. As per the terms of  the policy contract  if  the  policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get  his/her  policy  reviewed by  returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days (Free Look Period) from the day the policy holder received the policy. The insurance company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein. In the present case, The Policies were sent to the complainant and the same was delivered on The complainant after the receipt of the subject policies and policy documents did not approach the replying OP and got his subject policies reviewed/cancelled within Free Look period implying that the complainant duly accepted the subject policies and its documents with its terms and conditions. The complainant never approached the replying opp. party with any grievance pertaining to the subject policies and its terms and conditions and straight away filed the present complaint. The complainant is now estopped from raising the issues/ grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policy. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given up /relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. That the opposite party as per clause 4(1) and 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002, sent the policies and policy documents along with the copy of the proposal forms to the complainant giving him opportunity to review/cancel the policy within freelook period. The policy documents were dispatched to the complainant on at the address of the complainant and same was received by the complainant, which is also not disputed in the present complaint. Despite receipt of the policy and policy documents, the complainant failed to approach the opposite party within free look period making any grievance with respect to the policy or its terms and conditions, implying the policy and its terms and conditions were duly accepted by the complainant and were in order. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given-up/relinquish/waived his right by not exercising the freelook provision. In view of the Judgements passed by the Honourable National Commission in Prema & Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) and in Kishore Chandrakant Rathod v. Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co Ltd and Ors, (Revision Petition No. 3390 of 2013, NCDRC), the onus was on the Complainant to read the contents of both the documents.The applicant is now estopped from raising the issues / grievances with respect to refund of premium of the subject policies. The applicant is bound by the policy contract and given up / relinquish / waved his right by not exercising the Free look Provision. Thus, the application is devoid of any merit and  is liable to be dismissed.That in the case titled as “Pramod Kumar vs. SBI Life Insurance Co.” decided by DCDRF, (North-West) New Delhi, on 18/02/2014 (Case No.-935/2012) it has been held as under : -“…We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record. The applicant has admitted that he had received the policy bond from which he had learned that he has being issued with another policy rather than the one for which he had made an application. If it was so the applicant had the option to reject the policy bond received by him within the Free Look period of 15 days. Since the applicant didn’t exercised the said option he cannot now raise a grievance about the same. In view of the judgement cited above we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP…”. Furthermore it has been determined through catena of judgments passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, in Mohan Lal Benal v/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Harish Kumar Chadha v/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. that if the insured/Applicant is not satisfied with the policy taken, then he/she should avail the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt i.e. within “the Free-look Period”. The said proposition has also been clearly laid down in the case Shrikant Murlidhar Apte vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Revision Petition no. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013. Further, the National Commission concurred with the findings of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that “Once 15 days ‘cooling off’ period is over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also biding on both of them.”

11.     Furthermore, the Complainant in his complaint has time and again pleaded that the Opposite Parties have played a fraud with him by misspelling the product by way of misrepresentation.  In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission in case Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co. (1998) CPJ 13 has held that when the         questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the Complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. Further in case Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.[1994 (1) CPR 396]: The Hon’ble National Commission held that if “fraud” is alleged, it is desirable that the complainant should be directed to Civil Court as investigation about such fraud is required to be done.

12.       The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement  which reads as under:-

“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”

13.     Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is not maintainable in this District Consumer Commission for its proper adjudication and the same stands dismissed. However, the complainant can get redressal of his grievance from the Civil Court/ or any other  competent authority, in accordance with law, for which the time spent before this District Commission shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Lakshmi Engineering Works vs PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC 583'. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left  to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

14.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.03.2022.