Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1.          The complainant Sri. Nagesha C.C has  filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, opposite party No.2 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company, Mysuru, opposite party Nos.3 Reliance Securities Limited, Bengaluru, opposite party No.4 Reliance Securities Limited, Mysuru  praying to direct the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.4,166/- in respect of policy No.53077026 dated 30.10.2017 and Rs.13,585/- in respect of policy No.53161256 dated 28.02.2018 and Rs.20,000/- towards damages, Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2.        The brief facts are that:-

The complainant was working as RMO at Reliance Securities Limited, Mysuru from 04.09.2017 to 03.03.2018 during his tenure opposite party Nos.2 and 3 had insisted to take insurance policies.Therefore he took insurance policies.(1) Policy No.53077026 by paying monthly premium of Rs.2,083/- and he paid 2 installments.(2) Policy No.53161256 by paying annual premium of Rs.13,585/- and he paid one year premium dated:28.02.2018.On 08.03.2018 on the direction of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 the Chief Human Resources Officer removed him from service without his fault and blocked his job without giving notice to him.At the time of removing of his service he undergone operation.All the opposite parties have harassed him mentally.Therefore he requested for cancellation of above said insurance policies through Gmail due to his termination from service.The Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company cancelled one policy No.53161256 but not returned the policy amount in spite of repeated request.Therefore, this complaint.

3.         After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite parties. In spite of service of notice upon opposite party Nos.3 and 4 they does not turned up.  Hence, they were placed exparte.  Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared before this Commission through their counsel and they have filed version contending that at the time of filing the reply the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have every intention to settle this dispute amicably by cancelling the disputed policies and refund the premium amount of Rs.4,170/- and Rs.13,585/- totally Rs.17,755/- in respect of two policies bearing Nos.53077026 and 53161256 as a gesture of good will  without causing harassment to the complainant.  At the same time  due to the limitation imposed upon the opposite parties had to file its reply within time.  Therefore the reply is filed contending that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are independent legal entity and engaged in business of providing life insurance to its customers.  The company had received duly filled and signed proposal form of policy from the complainant.  Accordingly the opposite party issued policy Nos.53077026 and 53161256 on monthly premium of Rs.2,083/- and  annual premium of Rs.13,585/- respectively and received two premiums of Rs.4,170/- in respect of policy No.53077026 and one annual premium of Rs.13,585/- in respect of policy No.53161256 from the complainant and it is further contended that the policy holder has a period of 15 days i.e., Free Look Period  during which time if policy holder not satisfied with the subject policy he could return the policy to the company, but the complainant not approached company and made no attempt to contact the opposite party within the period of Free Look Period.  Therefore it cannot be said that the complainant is unaware of the policy terms and conditions and further contended that the complainant for the first time approached the opposite party with a request for Free Look Cancellation for subject policy No.53161256 on 16.04.2018 which was beyond the Free Look Period as the said subject policy was issued on 28.02.2018 and the Free Look Period of 15 days ended on 15.03.2018.  Therefore the opposite party issued a letter dated 21.04.2018 informing the complainant that the request for policy cancellation cannot be processed.  The insurance policy in conformity with the insurance proposal received by the company and it is stated that it is a settled law that the insurance terms have to be construed strictly and no relief which is beyond the terms of the insurance policies can be granted, hence no case of deficiency in service is made out and there is no breach on the part of opposite party.  The contract between the policy holder and the company both parties are governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy document and all the benefits are payable strictly as per the policy terms and conditions.  The complainant must have gone through all the contents of the proposal form and policy terms and conditions and benefits there and under made him fully satisfied and therefore affixed his signature on the proposal form and has paid the premium amounts of his free will.  The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are no way related to opposite party Nos.3 and 4.  For all these prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.         The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to 15.   On the other hand, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1 and got marked Exhibit R.1 to R.9.

5.      We have heard the arguments of both sides.

6.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and thereby he is entitle to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

7.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :-In the negative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.        Point No.1:-   It is not in dispute that the complainant had obtained two  insurance policies, policy No.1 bearing No. 53077026 by paying monthly premium of Rs.2,083/-, policy No.2 bearing No.53161256 by paying annual premium of Rs.13585/-  from opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  It is the further case of the complainant that he was working as RMO under opposite party No.4 and the opposite party Nos.3 and 4 had removed him from service and during the time of his service at the instance of opposite party he obtained life insurance policies from opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and he further contended that  due to removing him from service from opposite party Nos.3 and 4 he requested opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of the above said two policies and contended that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 cancelled the policy No.53161256 but not returned premium amount.  Therefore alleged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  Hence, the complainant contended that opposite parties are liable to pay two premium instalments paid in respect of policy No.53077026 of Rs.4,166/- and premium amount of Rs.13,585/- which was paid in respect of policy No.53161256 and other incidental charges such as towards deficiency in service, compensation, cost of the litigation etc.,.

9.        It is the specific contention of the opposite party No.1 and 2 that at the time of filing the version the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 had an intention to settle the premium amount of Rs.17,755/- to the complainant in respect of two policies as a gesture of good will, but due to limitation in filing the version they filed the version based upon the terms and conditions of the policy and further contended that there was a Free Look Period of 15 days from the date of issuance of policy, the policy holder i.e., the complainant not utilized 15 days Free Look Period for cancellation of policies and the complainant had requested opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of policy No.53161256 on 16.04.2018 beyond the period of 15 days Free Look.  Therefore the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sent a letter dated 21.04.2018 to complainant informing him that the policy cancellation cannot be processed.  From the contention of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and as per the terms and conditions of the policy the complainant did not utilized the Free Look Period of 15 days for cancellation of policies from the date of issuance of policies, but he requested opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of policy beyond the period of 15 days.  Therefore as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 not cancelled the policies and did not pay the premium amounts to the complainants and it is further contention of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that as the complainant fails to utilize the Free Look Period of 15 days it is deemed that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions of the policy.  Therefore the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 binds to the terms and conditions of the policy issued to complainant.  Therefore contends that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not at all committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

10.      From the complaint averments and documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant and the version of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and documents relied upon by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, it is crystal clear that the complainant had not utilized the Free Look Period of 15 days for cancellation of policy issued to complainant by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and beyond the period of 15 days from the date of issue of policy,  the complainant approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of the policy.  Therefore the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 not processed the cancellation of the policy issued to complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the policies the request of any policy holder beyond the period of Free Look Period of cancellation of the policy cannot be considered.  Therefore the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have not considered for cancellation of the policies issued to complainant.  Hence, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the complaint.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.   Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

11. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

     The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.

     Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 23^rd   March, 2021)