STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Ashok Kumar s/o Late Shri Ram Lal resident of H.No.1103, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.        M/s Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Regn. No.107, behind Everard Nagar, 9th Floor, Godrej Coliseum, SION (East), Mumbai 400002.

2.        M/s Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.153-155, Sector 9C, Chandigarh.

3.        M/s Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., SCO 5, Sector 34C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Appellant in person

 Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.03.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the OPs (now respondents), sent their representatives, to the residence of the complainant, in the 1st week of December 2008, who came up with a scheme “Zindgai-se-ek-kadam-Aagye”. It was stated by the complainant that their representatives pressurized him, that the said scheme was very beneficial for him, in his old age and took a cheque of Rs.20,000/-, from him. They got the proposal form signed and told the complainant, that he has to pay only three installments for three years, whereafter, he would get handsome amount, from the OPs.  It was further stated that after reading the policy documents, by the complainant, he was not satisfied and on 15.3.2009, requested for refund of the deposit made by him, towards the policy in question.  He further stated that the said premium amount was not refunded, despite writing a number of letters to the OPs and service of a legal notice upon them. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.               When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

4.               In the written reply, the OPs stated that the complainant, opted for “Kotak Smart Advantage Plan” after thoroughly understanding the features, terms and conditions of the policy and signed the proposal form dated 20.12.2008.  It was further stated that according to Clause 3 of the proposal form, the complainant, chose the policy term as 15 years and frequency of premium, as yearly, after which the OPs, issued the policy bearing No.01447709 dated 31.12.2008, which was duly delivered at his (complainant) address. It was further stated that, for the first time, the OPs, received a communication dated 11.4.2009, from the complainant, requesting for the refund of premium amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was beyond the free look period prescribed for cancellation. It was further stated that, accordingly, the request of the complainant was declined by them, vide their letter dated 22.4.2009.  It was denied that the OPs did not respond to the communications, sent by the complainant. It was further denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the OPs.

5.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.               After hearing the appellant, in person, as well as, the Counsel for the respondents, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that the proposal form was signed by the complainant, after understanding the contents thereof, and he opted for the policy term, as 15 years. It was further held by the District Forum, that since, no request was made by the complainant, for cancellation of the policy, during the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the documents of the same(policy), his request for refund of the initial premium, made by him, was rightly declined, according to the terms and conditions of the said policy.

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.               We have heard the appellant, in person, as well as, the Counsel for the respondents, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The appellant/complainant submitted, that he never opted for policy term as 15 years. He further submitted that the representatives of the OPs/respondents, who came to him, told him, that the policy period was only three years and he had to pay only three premiums per annum, and, thereafter, he will get handsome amount. He further submitted that his signatures on the proposal form were forged, by the representatives of the OPs. He further submitted that, when he came to know of this fact, he intimated the OPs for the cancellation of policy and sought refund of the initial premium, paid by him, but they refused to do so. He further submitted that he was cheated, by the representatives of the OPs, and fraud was also played upon him, by them. He further submitted that the District Forum, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that there was neither any deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practices. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.            On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/OPs submitted that no pressure was put upon the complainant, by the representatives of the OPs. He further submitted that the complainant, signed the proposal form, of his own accord, after understanding the terms and conditions of the policy, which he was going to purchase. He further submitted that he opted for the policy, the duration whereof was 15 years and the same was issued to him. He further submitted  that, incase, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, then, he could have made a request for cancellation of the same, within 15 days free look period, from the date of receipt of the policy papers. He further submitted that he did not do so and, as such, the OPs were legally right, in declining his request, for the refund of the premium amount. He further submitted that the complainant was neither cheated, nor any fraud was played upon him, in any manner, by the representatives of the OPs. He further submitted that it was not the case of the complainant, in the complaint, that his signatures were forged on the proposal form, but, now he has set up a new case, at the time of addressing arguments in the appeal. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

11.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the appellant, in person, Counsel for the respondents, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The proposal form Annexure R-1 dated 20.12.2008, shows that it was signed by the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant did not take up the plea, that the signatures, on the proposal form, did not relate to him but the same were forged. It is evident from the proposal form R-1 that the complainant had opted for “Kotak Smart Advantage Plan”. Once he signed the proposal form, it could be very well said that he signed the same, after understanding the terms and conditions thereof. No evidence was produced by the complainant, that his signatures were obtained on the proposal form, under pressure or that somebody forged the same. It is evident, from the proposal form R-1, that the duration of the policy, which was obtained by the complainant, was 15 years, and the sum assured was Rs.2 lacs, whereas, the annual premium was Rs.20,000/-. R-2 is the letter dated 02.01.2009, which was addressed to the complainant, alongwith which the policy papers were sent to him. In this letter, free look period of 15 days was mentioned, during which the complainant could make a request for cancellation, in case, he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy. During the free look period of 15 days, from the date of receipt of the policy papers, the complainant did not exercise the option of cancellation of the same. The parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, in the shape of insurance policy, and the Commission, cannot go beyond the same. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that since during the free look period, the option for the cancellation of policy was not exercised by the complainant, the OPs were not liable to refund the amount of premium, to him, on the basis of request made by him vide letters Annexures C-4 to C-7 for the period from 15.03.2009 to 05.11.2009, followed by legal notice dated 15.09.2009 Annexure C-8. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

12.            No other point was urged by the appellant, as well as, the Counsel for the respondents.

13.            The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

September 21, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg