Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

                Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/OPs challenging the Judgment and Order dated 30/03/2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit II, in Complaint Case No. 332/2016 allowing the complaint on contest with cost of Rs.2000/-against the Appellants/OPs.

                The Appellants/OPs were directed to refund the entire deposited premium amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-after deducting 5% as service charge. They were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/-as compensation for harassing the Complainant through mis-sale of the articles/Products.

                The Appellants/OPs were also directed to pay the decretal amount within one month from the date of the impugned Judgment and Order, failing which, as ordered, they should have to pay jointly and severally the penal damage @ Rs. 2,000/-per month till full satisfaction of the decree.

                Further failure to comply with the above direction, as ordered, would attract the penal provision u/s 25 read with section 27 of the C P Act, 1986 against the Appellants/OPs which, as directed, might lead to the imposition of further penalty as per provision of the Act.

                The fact, in brief, leading to the instant controversy was that the Respondent/Complainant, being allured by the Agent of the Appellants/OPs about the dreamy prospect of the policy which, as explained to him, would make him entitled to loan up to Rs. 40,00,000/-in addition to the coverage given under the policy as per its terms and conditions, invested his hard earned money for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-towards one time premium for purchasing the said policy.

                The policy papers which he received long after on repeated persuasion revealed that the policy was not a onetime one, rather, it was a policy of 18 years for an Annual premium of Rs. 1, 50,000/-. The policy terms were also found to be silent about sanction of any loan which was in dire need of, for saving his business and which he was promised to be given as per policy terms.

                Realizing the fact that he was deceived by the Appellants/OPs, the Respondent/Complainant made effort to get his policy cancelled on return of his policy documents. The effort, however, proved to be futile as the Appellants/OPs refused to pay heed to his demand. The Respondent/Complainant’s communication to the Branch Manager informing him about the gross misconduct and unlawful trade practiced upon him through mis-sale of the policy by his organization and soliciting refund of the paid premium in cancellation of the policy also went in vain.

                The Respondent/Complainant found in the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit II a competent Forum to be resorted to for his grievances addressed and filed the instant Complaint which led to originate the Judgment and Order under challenge in the instant Appeal.

                The Appeal was heard ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant.

                The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/OPs did not make any verbal submission. She only placed before the Forum her Brief Note of Argument and prayed for considering the same while making assessment of the merit of the Appeal.

                Perused the papers on record and considered the BNA submitted by the Appellants/OPs. Record revealed that the Respondent/Complainant had acknowledged the delivery of the policy papers. As stated by him, he, on receipt of the policy papers, delivered late to him, came to be aware of the fact that he was issued not the same policy which the Appellants/ OPs had promised him.

                The Respondent/Complainant moved for cancellation of the policy and for refunding the paid amount of premium submitting the free look cancellation form, annexure W/5, running page 102, which the Appellants/OPs refused to accept and communicated with reasons for non-acceptance of the said proposal to the Respondent/Complainant under their communication dated 13/05/2014, vide Annexure-W/6, running page 104. The Appellants/OPs, in their said communication, confirmed the dispatch of the policy papers on 10/04/2014 by speed post and anticipated that the policy papers were delivered in time as the same was not returned to them undelivered. The cancellation request, since received by the Appellants/OPs on expiry of the statutory free look period on 06/05/2014, the request could not be entertained.

                Question is whether the Free Look Cancellation form was at all submitted on expiry of the statutory period. The Complaint Petition confirmed receipt of the policy papers but it was silent about the date of receipt of the same leaving room to suspect that the date of delivery was intentionally suppressed in the complaint. We, therefore, had reasons to believe that the policy papers were received in time and the proposal for cancellation of the policy and refund of the paid amount was submitted on expiry of the free look period.

                The Respondent/Complainant was an educated youth. He had signed the policy papers in English. He was attached with the brick field business along with his father. There was no reason, therefore, to think that the Respondent/Complainant should sign the policy without going through the terms and conditions of the same.

                 Clause 7 under the Head “Loan Provision” under the general terms and conditions of the policy was found to be unequivocally clear about the absence of any provision of loan in the policy. Mere verbal commitment by an agent of the insurer towards sanction of the loan once the policy was adopted hardly had any acceptability. More so, as because the said agent was not made a party to the complaint.

                The observation in the impugned Judgment and Order to the effect that the Respondent/Complainant had no earning more than Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum prima-facie appeared to be baseless. We have gone through the Income Tax Return Verification forms of the Respondent/ Complainant, PAN being BBVPM0649E for three successive Assessment Years of 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 where his incomes were shown as Rs,. 19,35,737/-Rs. 23,80,261/-and Rs. 25,65,788/-respectively. This indicated that the Respondent/Complainant was having an increasing income per year and was having enough of capability to afford the premium amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum.

                The record also revealed from the policy proposal of the Complainant that the Respondent/Complainant was running two more policies. One under No. 01198127 with FGI for a sum assured of 21,64,271/-and the other one being ULIP with LICI for a sum assured of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He used to pay annual premiums for the amounts of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-respectively in respect of the said two policies.

                In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the firm belief that the contents of the instant Complaint were an afterthought concocted story and had hardly any merit to be given due consideration.

                Such being our observation, we are inclined to hold that the Appeal should be allowed setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order.

                Hence,

Ordered

                that the Appeal be and the same stands allowed ex-parte against the Respondent/Complainant. Impugned judgment and Order stands set aside. No order as to costs.