Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that on the allurement of the Opposite Party that there is guaranteed monthly regular income of Rs.1 lakh per month, the complainant purchased a policy bearing No. 21389815 from the Opposite Party and deposited Rs.1,81,450/- on 15.09.2014 and at that time, the officials of the Opposite Party also got signatures on various blank papers and assured that they will fill these papers lateron. Thereafter, the complainant also deposited second installment of Rs.1,84,625.38 paisa on 15.09.2015 with the Opposite Party. But when the complainant had to deposit the third installments, it has come to the notice of the complainant that there is no such scheme of guaranteed monthly regular income of Rs.1 lakh after the payment of entire installments of the policy. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party and made request to refund the deposited amount, but to no affect and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Party may be directed to refund the sum of Rs.3,66,075.38 paisa alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission complainant may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product had voluntarily applied for a policy by filling up the proposal form, the insurance policy was issued to the complainant on 24.09.2014 alongwith its terms and conditions which was duly received by the complainant and hence the free look period of 15 days had expired in October, 2014, but the complainant has filed the present complaint after the expiry of three years and hence the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant was duly informed that in case she is not satisfied with the features or the terms and condition of the policy, she can withdraw/ cancel the policy under the ‘free look period’ provision, that is, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy documents, but the complainant did not raise any objection towards the policy during the said ‘free look period’ with any grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions, meaning thereby that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. The insurance company was in receipt of a duly signed and filled proposal form from the complainant for issuance of an insurance policy on his life as per details contained in the said form and Opposite Party believing the information given by the complainant in the proposal form to be true and correct in all aspects and as per its underwriting norms issued subject policy in favour of the complainant and said policy documents were dispatched on 25th September, 2014 through Speed Post with POD No. EK 412935854IN which was duly received by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has failed to make the payment of installments regularly and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. On merits, Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party also tendered into evidence the affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith copy of documents Ex.R1 and closed their evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that as and when the complainant has come to know that the Opposite Party has sold her the wrong policy by showing her green pasters, then she applied with the Opposite Party for the cancellation of the policy in question and also requested to refund the paid up amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that after completely understanding the terms and conditions of the product had voluntarily applied for a policy by filling up the proposal form, the insurance policy was issued to the complainant on 24.09.2014 alongwith its terms and conditions which was duly received by the complainant and hence the free look period of 15 days had expired in October, 2014, but the complainant has filed the present complaint after the expiry of three years and hence the present complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant was duly informed that in case he is not satisfied with the features or the terms and condition of the policy, he can withdraw/ cancel the policy under the ‘free look period’ provision, that is, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the policy documents, but the complainant did not raise any objection towards the policy during the said ‘free look period’ with any grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions, meaning thereby that the complainant agreed to the policy and its terms and conditions. The insurance company was in receipt of a duly signed and filled proposal form from the complainant for issuance of an insurance policy on his life as per details contained in the said form and Opposite Party believing the information given by the complainant in the proposal form to be true and correct in all aspects and as per its underwriting norms issued subject policy in favour of the complainant and said policy documents were dispatched on 25th September, 2014 through Speed Post with POD No. EK 412935854IN which was duly received by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has failed to make the payment of installments regularly and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. 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.”
Further moreover, in the instant case, the complainant has not sought to cancel the policy in question within free look period of 15 days rather chose to pay the second premium and as such, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, she can not get cancel the policy after free look period of 15 days as per the terms of the policy. In this regard, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in case Vipin Kumar Vs. ICICI Prudential in Appeal No.95/2013 decided on 01.05.2013 has held that where insured had not sought the cancellation of the policy within the free look period, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. 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.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. 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 cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
