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. 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 Insurance 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 issued another policy of Future General India Life. 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 and then Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued three policies  of Future Generally India Life Insurance. In this way, the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- was given to the Opposite Parties on account of purchase of insurance policy bearing No.53256309 dated 5.7.2018 and the Opposite Parties also issued  receipt in this regard. Thereafter, the Complainant called the representative of the Opposite Parties many times and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest upto date, but the Opposite Parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another.   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.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% 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.       Opposite Parties 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 complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has failed to make out a case of "Deficiency of Service" as alleged or otherwise within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. This District Consumer Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint as the proposal form was signed at Ludhiana and the policy in question was also issued by branch office Ludhiana, therefore no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the contract of the Insurance between the respondent and complainant is governed by its Policy terms and conditions and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs M/s Garg sons International" 2013 (1) CPC 192, held that courts are excepted to give paramount importance to the terms of insurance contract into between the parties – terms of insurance policy must be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of liability of the insurer" and further in case titled as “Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd and another Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009(4) CLT 313” and further in case titled “Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd 2009 (2) CLT 15” held that in a contract of insurance, rights and obligations are strictly governed by the policies of insurance-No exception or relaxation can be made on the ground of equity. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled “LIC of India and others vs Mahendra Singh” reported as 2011(4) CLT 39, also held that “The terms of 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 substitute”. The complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the opposite parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite parties which is company of high repute.The complainant has failed to setup nexus between the damages claimed in the present complaint and the damages suffered by him. The damages claim is arbitrary, without basis and is an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that, based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed & submitted by the Complainant, the Opposite party-Company had issued the following Policy along with the terms and conditions governing the Policy and a Welcome Letter. The details of the same are reproduced herewith for kind perusal of this District Consumer Commission.

The above policy document was dispatched through speed post at the given address in the proposal form and the same was admittedly duly received by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant had signed the declaration & authorization contained in the proposal forms.  Meaning thereby the proposer was explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and only after her satisfaction she provided the details in the proposal form and signed the same in English language after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of “Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Agarwal Steel”. 2009 (4) CCC 598 (SC), 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. The Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in case of Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jasmail Singh in appeal No. 880/2014 decided on 02.02.2016 taken the similar view. It is further stated that the Policy schedule filed by the complainant itself states the Premium paying term under the policy was of "10 years" and as such he was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature. It is further stated that the complainant had received the policy documents and all the applicable charges, Premium paying terms, benefits etc., are duly mentioned in the policy and as such he was fully aware about all the terms and conditions and benefits. As per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document:

“whenever a insurer is forwarding a policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by the letter forwarding the policy to the insured that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms or conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund an amount equal to the non allocated premium plus the charges levied by cancellation of units plus the fund values as on date of cancellation subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover for the period on cover less expenses incurred by the company on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges.”

Said clause is duly mentioned in the policy document and the complainant had duly received the policy document and therefore was fully aware with the terms and conditions governing the policy but did not opt for free-look cancellation after the receipt of policy meaning thereby he has accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. The Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in case titled Norbert Shaba Rego S/o Late Sh. Shaba Antony Rego Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr 2018(4) CPJ 316, Devraj Kishore Dass Versus Reliance Life Insurance 218(3) CPJ 518, Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (4) CPJ 690, Tarsem Singh Vs PNB MetLife 2016 (3) CPR 757 and Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shelly Sharma 2014 (1) C.P.R. 593, the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh in case titled as "Shashi Khanna Vs. Reliance Life" appeal No.179 of 2013 decided on 03.05.2012 and the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in case titled as "Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Vs Pardeep Garg, Appeal No.1139 of 2012 decided on 10.01.2014 held that the complainant after receipt of the policy did not exercise the option, during the free look period of 15 days, either for cancellation thereof or modification of the terms and conditions thereon, as per regulation 6 (2) of IRDA. So, the complainant cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policies, and declarations, which were duly signed by her. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Parties 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.C9, additional affidavit Ex.C10, envelop containing  CD Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered  into evidence affidavit of Sh.Khushpreet Singh, Ex.Ops1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.Ops5 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 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. 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 Insurance 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 issued another policy of Future General India Life. 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 and then Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 issued three policies  of Future Generally India Life Insurance. In this way, the payment of Rs.1,60,000/- was given to the Opposite Parties on account of purchase of insurance policy bearing No.53256309 dated 5.7.2018 and the Opposite Parties also issued  receipt in this regard. Thereafter, the Complainant called the representative of the Opposite Parties many times and requested them to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest upto date, but the Opposite Parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext to another.   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 has repelled the aforesaid contention of ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that  the complaint being frivolous and vexatious is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of The Consumer Protection Act as the complainant has failed to make out a case of "Deficiency of Service" as alleged or otherwise within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. This District Consumer Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to try & decide the present complaint as the proposal form was signed at Ludhiana and the policy in question was also issued by branch office Ludhiana, therefore no cause of action has arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum, therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the contract of the Insurance between the respondent and complainant is governed by its Policy terms and conditions and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs M/s Garg sons International" 2013 (1) CPC 192, held that courts are excepted to give paramount importance to the terms of insurance contract into between the parties – terms of insurance policy must be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of liability of the insurer" and further in case titled as “Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd and another Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2009(4) CLT 313” and further in case titled “Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd 2009 (2) CLT 15” held that in a contract of insurance, rights and obligations are strictly governed by the policies of insurance-No exception or relaxation can be made on the ground of equity. The Hon’ble National Commission in case titled “LIC of India and others vs Mahendra Singh” reported as 2011(4) CLT 39, also held that “The terms of 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 substitute”. The complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the opposite parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the opposite parties which is company of high repute.  The complainant has failed to setup nexus between the damages claimed in the present complaint and the damages suffered by him. The damages claim is arbitrary, without basis and is an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that, based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposal form duly executed & submitted by the Complainant, the Opposite party-Company had issued the following Policy along with the terms and conditions governing the Policy and a Welcome Letter. The details of the same are reproduced herewith for kind perusal of this District Consumer Commission.

The above policy document was dispatched through speed post at the given address in the proposal form and the same was admittedly duly received by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant had signed the declaration & authorization contained in the proposal forms which inter alia specifically states as under:

I understand and agree that the statements in this proposal form shall be the basis of the contract between me and Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited ("the Company"). I agree that I will inform the Company if between the date of this proposal and the date of issuance of the policy about any change in my general health, occupation, financial position or if any other proposal or application to any other Insurance Company on my life is declined/postponed or accepted other than the standard terms so that the Company may consider the terms of acceptance. I agree that the Insurance protection shall only be provided effective from the date of acceptance of risk by the Company. I further declare that the statements in this proposal are true and I have disclosed all information which might be material to the Company while issuing the policy contract. I declare that the premiums paid have not been generated from the proceeds of any criminal activities/ offences and I shall abide by and conform to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or any other applicable laws. I declare that the Company has disclosed and explained all the information related to this product and riders to me and I declare that I have understood the same before signing this proposal form. In case of fraud, including the act of concealment of material facts, the policy contract shall be cancelled immediately by forfeiture of all premiums paid or in case of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts the policy contract shall be treated in accordance with the Section 45 of Insurance Act,1938 as amended from time to time.

Meaning thereby the proposer was explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and only after her satisfaction she provided the details in the proposal form and signed the same in English language after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of “Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Agarwal Steel”. 2009 (4) CCC 598 (SC), 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. The Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in case of Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jasmail Singh in appeal No. 880/2014 decided on 02.02.2016 taken the similar view. It is further stated that the Policy schedule filed by the complainant itself states the Premium paying term under the policy was of "10 years" and as such he was fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature. It is further stated that the complainant had received the policy documents and all the applicable charges, Premium paying terms, benefits etc., are duly mentioned in the policy and as such he was fully aware about all the terms and conditions and benefits. As per Section 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002, insured can avail free look cancellation or modifications within 15 days of the receipt of the policy document:

“whenever a insurer is forwarding a policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by the letter forwarding the policy to the insured that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms or conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating the reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund an amount equal to the non allocated premium plus the charges levied by cancellation of units plus the fund values as on date of cancellation subject to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover for the period on cover less expenses incurred by the company on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges.”

Said clause is duly mentioned in the policy document and the complainant had duly received the policy document and therefore was fully aware with the terms and conditions governing the policy but did not opt for free-look cancellation after the receipt of policy meaning thereby he has accepted the terms and conditions of the policy. The Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi in case titled Norbert Shaba Rego S/o Late Sh. Shaba Antony Rego Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr 2018(4) CPJ 316, Devraj Kishore Dass Versus Reliance Life Insurance 218(3) CPJ 518, Mohan Lal Benal Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (4) CPJ 690, Tarsem Singh Vs PNB MetLife 2016 (3) CPR 757 and Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shelly Sharma 2014 (1) C.P.R. 593, the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh in case titled as "Shashi Khanna Vs. Reliance Life" appeal No.179 of 2013 decided on 03.05.2012 and the Hon'ble State Commission Punjab in case titled as "Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited Vs Pardeep Garg, Appeal No.1139 of 2012 decided on 10.01.2014 held that the complainant after receipt of the policy did not exercise the option, during the free look period of 15 days, either for cancellation thereof or modification of the terms and conditions thereon, as per regulation 6 (2) of IRDA. So, the complainant cannot wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policies, and declarations, which were duly signed by him and as such 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.