Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 was filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit—II in Complaint Case No. 446/2014 allowing the complaint on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The OPs were directed jointly and severally to refund the balance amount after deducting 5% service charge from Rs.1,00,000/-, being the paid amount of the premium. It was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for the mental pain and agony that the Complainant had to sustain being deceived by the Appellant/OP Company through its agents. The facts of the case, in brief, leading to the instant controversy were that the Respondent/Complainant, allegedly, being allured by the exaggerated presentation of the prospect of one policy by the agent of the Appellant/OP Insurance Company, adopted on 13.03.2014 the policy by making a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque as, what she was given to understand, a onetime premium. She did not receive policy papers at her home address till the date when she had to live for Orissa in connection with her business. She, on return from her business trip from Orissa, received the policy papers, prima facie perplexing, as the policy documents were not revealing about the same to be of onetime premium rather, as it was shown, it involved payment of annual premium of Rs.1,00,000/- per year for a policy period of 20 years. The terms and conditions laid down in the supplied policy documents, since found to be absolutely contradictory to the same of the policy she was committed to be given by the agent of the Appellant/OP Insurance Company, the Respondent/Complainant prayed for refund of the premium which the Appellant/OP Company refused to yield to. Hence the case. The Appeal under No. 1072/2016 being exactly identical in nature and character, the same was analogously heard for being disposed of by this common order. Heard the Appeal ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP submitted that the Respondent/Complainant’s taking policy of payment of premium was an admitted fact but the content of the petition was full of fabrications. In view of the fact that the Complainant who used to run her business beyond the periphery of the state, should not be considered so fool to be agreed to sign a document without going through it. Further, the Respondent/Complainant did not avail herself of the benefit of free look period to change or closure of the given policy had the same been so different from that she had contemplated or was convinced to adopt. As contended, the Respondent/Complainant’s, in the above perspective, was a baseless claim to be taken into consideration as the refund, as prayed for, was beyond the authority of the Appellant/OP to be acceded to and as the Respondent/Complainant was tied down by an Agreement of contract which, as per settled principle of law, she was supposed to abide by. The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order. We have perused the papers on record and considered the submission of the Appellant/OP. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order. There was no gainsaying the fact that there was a conspicuous absence of any document of evidentiary value to substantiate that the Respondent/Complainant was made to swallow the subject policy. It, however, was also true at the same time that the Respondent/Complainant was ultimately made to adopt a policy of sum assured of Rs.11,12,160/- and that too after contributing Rs.1,00,000/- for a policy period of 20 continuous years which meant, on payment of a total premium of Rs.20,00,000/-. The sum assured less by more than Rs.8,00,000/- from the total premium paid throughout the policy period was something peculiar of a policy which, from the very inception, was contradictory to the interest of the policy takers and thereby earned the demerits of the policy to be treated as void ab-initio. The Appeal No. A/1073/2016 which was given an analogous hearing, being the policy in the name of the husband of the insurer Respondent/Complainant, the family contribution for the policies in question came to Rs.2,00,000/- per year. Such an abnormally high policy premium for one family to pay, left for us reasons to believe the charges of the policy terms being not explained to the policy takers, as alleged in the complaint, had certain ingredients of truth. We, therefore, do not find any inconsistency in the findings of the Ld. District Forum so as to ascertaining the deficiency on the part of the Appellant/OP is concerned. We are, however, not indifferent to the very casual approach of the Respondent/Complainant, while signing blindly the policy papers in spite of cautions being publicised through electronic and print media to increase awareness among general public for not signing the Agreement papers so casually. We, therefore, are inclined to modify the impugned judgment and order by reducing the cost and compensation to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP. We further intend to increase the processing charges to be deducted from the amount of premium paid to meet the ends of justice. Hence, Ordered that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The Appellant/OP is hereby directed to refund to the Respondent/Complainant an amount after deducting 10% from the total premium of Rs.1,00,000/- as service charge. It is further directed to pay cost and compensation to the tunes of Rs.2,000/- and 5,000/- only respectively to the Respondent/Complainant within 45 days from the date of the instant order, failing which, simple interest @ 9% shall accrue to Rs.95,000/-, being the total of refund amount and compensation from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The impugned judgment and order stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Instant judgment and order shall apply mutatis mutandis to Appeal bearing No. A/1073/2016 which shall be similarly governed by the instant order. | 
