CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.235/2006
SMT. PRAKASH WATI
W/O SH. NAWAL SINGH
R/O A-62, WEST NATHU COLONY,
GALI NO.1, MANDOLI ROAD,
SHAHDARA, DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER,
BARJAYA HOUSE, 8TH FLOOR, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110065
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 19.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that on the inducement by the agent of OP, she took an insurance policy named Mahalife Plan from OP on 21.12.2004 and paid a premium amount of Rs.22,509/-. It is stated that due to the financial problem, she was unable to continue with the policy and sought refund of the amount on 16.02.2005 i.e. within two months of taking of the policy. However, the amount was not refunded despite making number of requests and even a legal notice was sent. It is prayed that OP be directed to refund Rs.22,509/- alongwith interest @ 18% plus Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in the reply took the plea that there was no question of taking the policy on the inducement made by the agent of OP. it is further stated that the application form for the policy which is duly signed by the complainant specifically contains the clause regarding the cancellation and right of refund of premium and that right was to be exercised within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy. Since the option was not exercised within free look period, hence the request of complainant for refund of amount of Rs.22,509/- was not accepted. It is further started that there was no deficiency in service.
We have carefully gone through the record.
Complainant has stated in her complaint that she was induced by the agent of OP to take the policy. It is nowhere stated in the letters written by the complainant to OP for the refund of the amount that she was induced by the agent of OP to take the policy and it is also nowhere stated in legal notice sent by the complainant to OP that in fact she was induced to take the policy. There is no question of inducing her for obtaining the policy. It is an admitted fact that she received the policy and terms and conditions were duly signed by her and as per the policy, there was free look period of 15 days. The complainant was within her right to seek refund of the amount within 15 days on the receipt of the policy however, she has not exercised that option within 15 days. OP is justified in not refunding the amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Keeping in view the above facts, complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
