Date: 06.07.2017

ORDER                                                        

Sh. K.S.Mohi, President

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant after reading notice on board of bank got insurance policy bearing no. 21099508 for 3 years in June 2013. However,  in the bond papers issued by OP the tenure of the policy was for a period of  10 years.  Later on he learnt from the public that one may surrender the policy after 3 years. There upon  he surrendered the policy  after 3 years on 03.06.2016 with OP. However , despite surrendering of policy the OP continued deducting the premium from the savings bank account of the complainant.  Complainant has prayed that his policy be closed and he be awarded a sum of Rs. 79,770/- with interest.
2. The OP filed reply taking preliminary objections inter-alia  that where the policy is unit linked or investment linked life insurance it shall be construed as profit gaining, therefore, a commercial activity. Accordingly, complainant cannot be termed as a consumer within the definition of section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and also that the matter involves complicated questions of Law therefore matter should be decided by a regular Civil Court. It has also been stated that as per clause 30 of terms and conditions of the policy ,the complainant had a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy to review the terms and conditions, in other words ,he had a free look period of 15 days to get the policy cancelled. It has been further stated that the complainant was duly informed about free look period by OP vide letter dated 14.06.2016. The complainant filled up all the documents including the proposal form after being conscious of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, complainant now cannot wriggle out of the situation. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has filed his own affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Rajeev Sharma  , Senior Manager – Legal   has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P. testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as written submissions filed by both the parties and have also heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel  for the parties.
5.  The controversy in the present complaint revolves around the issue as to whether the complainant is entitled to the claim amount involved in the complaint. The answer is in the negative.  The essential document to ascertain as to  whether there was any kind of deficiency on the part of OP is the proposal form duly filled in by the complainant.  It also bears his signature. The cursory look of contents of the proposal form explicitly demonstrate that the complainant after going through all the terms and conditions of the policy had put his signature by declaring that he had completely understood the terms and conditions of the plan he had applied for.  The perusal of the complaint would also show that complainant signed the bond for ten years i.e. the premium period. Not only this, it has been specifically stated in the complaint that complainant learnt from the general public that policies could  be surrendered after three years. No fraud or misrepresentation has been alleged in this complaint, therefore, it can be inferred that complainant in all senses signed the proposal form , therefore, it is now difficult for the complainant to back out from the terms and conditions of the policy. The law in this regard is very clear.  It is seen from the proposal form that complainant is running a general store therefore he can be expected  of having minimum knowledge of these matters. We would like to refer to case titled Prema and Ors. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC) where the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has observed the following ,

“Insofar as the filling of the proposal forms is concerned, Manjunath was lineman in K.E.B. at Davangere.  As such, the State Commission was justified in taking the view that it was reasonable to believe that he would have the minimum knowledge of these matters.  Consequently it could not be believed that he had simply put his signatures on different proposal forms.  Besides, it may be mentioned that in terms of LIC vs. M Gown’s Ors, the judgment referred to by the State Commission the agent who got the proposal form could be an agent of the person seeking insurance policy.  The plea that the insured was not aware of the requirement to give correct answer and about contents of the answers given cannot be accepted”.  

In an another case titled as Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel  [ Civil Appeal Nos.5994 of 2004, 7477 of 2004 and 1733 of 2005 the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide their judgment dated 20.10.2009 ruled:

 “ When a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted”. 

In another case   titled as Col. T.S. Bakshi Retd.  Vs.  Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.  the Hon’ble National Commission observed as under;

“It is well settled that an insurance contract is a species of commercial transactions and while deciding the dispute between the insured and insurer, the terms and conditions have to be construed strictly…Even if the plea of the petitioner that insured was not explained the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is accepted for the sake of arguments, then also, the petitioner has no case because clause 10 of the insurance contract under the heading “Conditions”, Free look period was given with option to seek cancellation of policy if he was not agreeable to the terms and conditions of the policy……The insured had not opted for cancellation of policy. Therefore, now he cannot be allowed to claim that he is not bound by exclusion clause because it was not explained to him when he remitted the cheque for payment of insurance premium”.

Further in the case of Polymat India P. Ltd. And Anr. Vs. National Insurance  Co. Ltd. And Ors. AIR 2005 SC 286, it was observed as under:

“The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the interest of parties adversely.”

6. For the forgoing reasons we do not see any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is wholly devoid of any merit and thus the same is dismissed.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

                   Announced this ___________day of __________2017.