Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sawinder Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  11 & 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that opposite party No.2 approached the complainant through its sale officer Mr. Saurabh Khera and persuaded him to get an Insurance policy from the opposite parties. The complainant opted to obtain a non ulip life Insurance policy from the opposite parties and paid Rs. 50000/-  vide cheque dated 29.7.2015.  Despite receipt of policy premium from the complainant, opposite parties have failed to deliver the original insurance policy documents to the complainant. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party regarding non delivery of the original insurance policy and requested them to issue the original policy documents. But despite repeated requests and demands, opposite parties failed to deliver the policy documents to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to immediately issue policy documents to the complainant without any further delay ;

(b)     Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 30000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed a joint written version in which  it was submitted that complainant had voluntarily applied for the policy for the purpose of investment and insurance after fully knowing well about the terms and conditions of the policy. That as per clause 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, 2002 , “while acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured, the insurer shall inform by letter forwarding the policy 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 and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reasons for his objections, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid subject only to a deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges. The policy was issued on 31.7.2015 and thereafter the policy documents were dispatched to the complainant  on 6.8.2015 through speed post consignment No. EA777261031N. However, the complainant despite receipt of the policy documents has not raised any objections during the free look period  and hence, it was presumed that the contract of insurance was legally concluded. It was submitted that complainant after  completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product “Met Endowment Saving Plan” had voluntarily applied for a policy  by filling up proposal form dated 29.7.2015. The complainant offered to pay a premium to the tune of Rs. 50000/  for a proposed sum assured amounting to Rs. 5,02,897/-. Complainant has also signed up benefit illustration form for the abovementioned policy and therefore he was well aware of all the terms and conditions of the policy. On the basis of the information provided by the complainant opposite party issued  policy bearing No.21642320 on 31.7.2015 to the complainant for the premium paying term of 10 years. Thereafter all the policy terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 6.8.2015 through speed post consignment No. EA777261031IN. It was submitted that the opposite party was in receipt of a complaint on dated 29.7.2016 whereby the complainant informed the opposite parties that he was a very poor person and requested for the cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount. Opposite party vide letter dated 4.8.2016 informed the complainant that since the free look period of 15 days as provided under clause 6.1 of the policy has expired, the request for the cancellation of the policy could not be processed by the opposite party. The complainant never requested for the cancellation of the policy within the free look period of 15 days  and hence, the opposite party is not liable to entertain any complaint . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh. Ravinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 t5o Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Ajay Shanker,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ankur Sanon, Br.Service Manager Ex.OP1,2/1A, copy of proposal form alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of cancellation letter Ex.OP1,2/2, copy of letter dated 4.8.2016 Ex.OP1,2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.           

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evidence that    complainant  was persuaded by opposite party No.2 to get an Insurance policy and as such complainant obtained a non ulip life Insurance policy from the opposite parties and paid Rs. 50000/- vide application No. 208489839 dated 29.7.2015, copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C-2 on record. But however, the complainant did not receive any policy documents despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the opposite parties.

7.   Whereas opposite party submitted that they had issued the policy bearing No. 21642320 on 31.7.2015. The policy documents alongwith terms and conditions were sent to the complainant on 6.8.2015 through speed post consignment No. EA777261031IN . But the opposite party could not produce any affidavit of the person from Post office, who could depose that he delivered the policy documents to the complainant on 6.8.2015. Further opposite party has also not produced any receipt book/register of post office to prove that the policy documents were duly received by the complainant under his own signatures. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Punjab in  First Appeal No. 1602 of 2012  decided on 22.1.2013 titled as ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jasjit Walia that where a person who delivered the shipment has not been produced nor his affidavit has been filed. Moreover, the document itself shows that shipment was not delivered to the complainant but it was received by  one Kulwinder. There is no mention whether this Kulwinder is a male or female  or what is the relationship of complainant with Kulwinder. Otherwise also , the delivery of the shipment  to Kulwinder  cannot be considered as the  delivery of the policy  to the complainant.

8.      In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the policy documents from the opposite parties. Resultantly the complaint is disposed off with the directions to the opposite parties to issue duplicate copy of policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned  to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 9.3.2017