DATE OF FILING: 08.08.2013.

              DATE OF DISPOSAL: 11.07.2017.

Dr. N.Tuna Sahu,  Presiding Member:

            The complainant has filed this consumer dispute  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in insurance service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his   grievance before this Forum. 

            2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the agent of O.P.No.1 approached the complainant requesting him to avail a life Insurance Policy of the O.P.No.2. The agent explained that M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd is authorized marketing agency of O.P.No.2. The complainant submitted his proposal to avail the BHARATI AXA LIFE AAJEEVAN SAMPATTI policy for the sum assured Rs.2,09,570/- under the terms of yearly premium payable @Rs.22,200/- for 15 years. The complainant paid the first premium through the cheque No.149636 dated 01.12.2012 of State Bank of India. On 12.12.2012 the complainant requested to the O.P.No.2 to cancel the policy. The copy of the letter was also addressed to the O.P.No.1. The complainant after receipt of the original policy bond returned the same to the O.P.No.2 by registered post together with copies of letter earlier addressed to the insurer along with a letter dated 7.3.2013. Copy of the said letter was submitted by the complainant to the office of the O.P.No.1 in person and that was acknowledged by the O.P.No.2 with seal and signature.  The O.P.No.2 in spite of receipt of the letters of request made by the complainant to cancel the policy No. 500-9281675 and even after return of the policy neither cancelled the policy nor refunded the money to the complainant. It is alleged that the O.Ps thereby violated the terms of policy and guidelines of IRDA for which they are all accountable for the actionable wrong and negligence for rendering deficient services to the consumer. Before marketing an insurance product it needs to be approved by the IRDA which ensures first-stage due diligence. Every insurance product marketed by the insurers has a feature of “15 day free look period”, which gives the policy holder to return the policy within 15 days of its issue without paying anything towards it. The free look clause gives the proposer an exit option, in case, on seeing the actual policy terms and conditions, he has second thought about it. It is also stated that the insurer does not have option to dilly-dally on the same. However, the O.Ps despite several request made by the complainant did not give any heed to his grievances hence alleging deficiency in service on the parts of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the premium amount together with interest and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and pecuniary loss suffered by the complainant on account of the negligence in providing service and for unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.

            3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 filed version through his authorized representative Sri Jagat Jiban Dash. In the written statement it is stated that the para No.1 of the complaint is strictly and vehemently denied. It is only after going through understanding terms and conditions of various policies, the complainant himself voluntarily and willingly invested in the insurance policy by depositing proposal form as well as insurance premium amount favoring O.P.No.2 and 3 insurance companies. In reply to Para No.2 to 3 of the complaint it is herein submitted that the letter dated 12.12.2012 and 17.03.2013 was actually addressed by complainant to other O.P.No.2 & 3 only with a copy marked to answering O.P. for the purpose of record only and not otherwise. The complainant given said letters to answering O.P. despite having full knowledge that the answering O.Ps in present transaction merely acted as a broker only.  It is not out of place to mention that the relief, as sought by the complainant in present case is not maintainable. The content of Para 4 of the complaint is denied to the extent that the answering O.P. has violated the terms of policy and guidelines of IRDA for which answering O.P. is accountable for the actionable wrong in negligence in rendering assured service to the consumer, as alleged. At the outset it is herein pertinent to mention that the said contention of the complainant has no relevancy, since the same is not corroborated with any evidence. Further answering O.Ps as a broker duly, timely and completely provided all possible services o the complainant. The cancellation of insurance policy and subsequent relief of refund of premium amount is not the role and responsibility, which answering O.P. as a broker has to perform.  The contents of Para No.15 of answering O.Ps preliminary objections shall be read in this regard, as the same is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.  The remaining constants of the Para need no reply, since the same is pertaining to other O.Ps.  The content of Para No. 5-6 of the complaint need no reply, since the complainant has raised specific allegations, issues and disputes against the other O.Ps. In reply to Para No.7 of the complaint it is herein submitted that for the purpose of making said investment, the complainant himself voluntarily signed, executed issued and deposited proposal form as well as premium amount directly in favour in to the account of O.P.No.2 and 3 only, whose branch office is at Bhubaneswar and Head Office at Mumbai, but surely not at Ganjam, Berhampur.  In other words, the complainant as a consumer has never paid any fees favoring answering O.Ps. The aforesaid fact is sufficient to prove that the complainant is not even a consumer of answering O.P. under section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus no locus-standi to file or prosecute present consumer complaint against answering O.Ps. In reply to Para No.8 of the complaint it is herein submitted that the present complaint is not only based on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations, based on baseless, defamatory and concocted story which has been created by the complainant before this Forum. The complainant throughout the contents of present complaint has narrated issues which are either relates or revolve around other O.Ps only and complainant has intentionally impleaded the name of the answering O.Ps. In other words the complainant has not only failed to raise any cause of action against the answering O.Ps, but also claimed relief, which is not at all maintainable against the answering O.Ps. Hence, the present complaint is liable for dismissal for want of cause of action against the O.Ps. In reply to Para 9 of the complaint, the O.Ps not to pay anything to the complainant as alleged or claimed. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- U/S 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 &3 filed version jointly through his Sri Pravin K. Hota, Advocate and Associates.  It is stated that the contents of paragraph No.1 of the complaint are admitted to the extent specifically admitted to here under, rest are denied on account of being false, vague and misleading. It is specifically denied that the cheque in question was dated 01.12.2012; on the contrary, the same was rather dated 03.12.2012. The feature of alleged policy is enumerated hereunder:

            The contents of paragraph No.2 of the complaint are admitted to the extent that the complainant indeed sent letter dated 12.12.2012. It is however repeated for the sake of emphasis, that the application/cancellation request dated 12.12.2012 (received by the O.Ps No.2 and 3 on 17.12.2012) could not be processed on account of mismatching signatures of the complainant.  The same was duly replied to vide letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013. It is once again repeated that even the authenticity of the application/request dated 12.12.2012 (received by the O.Ps No. 2&3 on 17.12.2012) could not be affirmed or verified on account of the mismatching signatures and non-responsiveness of the complainant to the letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013.  The contents of paragraph No.3 of the complaint are denied except the receiving of letter dated 07.03.2013.  The complainant deliberately did not reply to the letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013. A letter dated 07.03.2013 (received by the O.P.No.2 & 3 on 11.03.2013) was indeed received but the same was not a reply to the above mentioned letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013 and provided fresh reasons for cancellation. The delivery of such alleged letters to O.P.No.1 is beyond the knowledge of answering O.P.No.2 & 3, thus same is answerable by O.P.No.1. The contents of paragraph No.4 of the complaint are most vehemently denied. The letter dated 07.03.2013 (received by the O.P. Nos. 2& 3) was duly replied on behalf of the O.P.No.2 & 3 on 13.03.2013. It is specifically and most vehemently denied that the O.P. No.2&3 violated any of the IRDA guidelines or regulations. The contents of paragraph No.5 of the complaint are most vehemently denied as immaterial, as the complainant admittedly requested cancellation vide letter dated 07.03.2013 (received by the O.P.No.2 & 3 on 11.03.2013) was sent way beyond the expiration of the Free Look Period. As explained by the letter dated 13.03.2013, the Freed Look Period expired on 29.12.2012.The contents of paragraph No.6 of the complaint are most vehemently denied as immaterial. The complainant was always duly replied to. It is further submitted that she complainant deliberately did not reply to the letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013 despite having received the same. The contents of paragraph No. 7 of the complaint are most vehemently denied as immaterial since there is no deficiency of service whatsoever. The contents of paragraph No. 8 of the complaint are most vehemently denied. The policy was not duly sought to be cancelled within the free look period. The territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum is matter of record. The contents of paragraph No.9 of the complaint are most vehemently denied based on the submissions made above. On the contrary it is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of subject policy the complainant is not entitled for any refund of money or monetary compensations in any manner whatsoever. The relief prayed in the complaint filed by the complainant is baseless, frivolous and vague as against the O.P. No2&3. Hence the O.P.No.2 &3 prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs, in the interests of justice and equity.

            5. On the date of final hearing we heard argument from the learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as from the authorized representative appearing for O.P.No.1 and learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2&3. We have also gone through the complain petition, written version, written arguments filed by all parties along with relevant documents submitted by all parties in support of their cases and verified the same placed on the case record.

            6. A perusal of documents and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that it is not in dispute that as per policy specifications of Bharati AXA Life Aajeevan Sampatti, the present complainant procured a policy bearing No.500-9281675 issued on 07.12.2012 by O.P. No.2&3 through O.P.No.1 on payment of yearly premium of Rs.20,200/- to be paid for a term of 15 years. It is also mentioned in the policy document that the maturity date of the policy is 07/12/2068 and the last premium due date is 07/12/2026. It is also not in dispute that under the said policy an assured sum of Rs.2,09,570/- to be paid to the complainant on the date of maturity and his spouse Smt.Y. Bhagyalaxmi has been nominated as beneficiary of the policy. It also reveals that the complainant on 12.12.2012 wrote a registered letter to the O.P. No.2 for cancellation of the said policy and requested to refund the premium amount. Similarly, on 19.12.2012 the complainant also wrote a letter to O.P.No.2&3 to cancel the policy and to refund the amount. Further, on 19.12.2012 the complainant again wrote a letter to O.P.No.2 & 3 to cancel the policy and to refund the amount. The complainant on 07.03.2013 replied to the letter of O.P.No.3 mentioning that he has gone through the policy details and not satisfied with the policy conditions, so he intended to withdraw the said policy within the free look period which was also communicated through O.P.No.1 to O.P.No.3 with acknowledgement. However, on repeated requests when the O.Ps failed to cancel the said policy and did not refund the premium amount, the complainant filed this consumer dispute with a prayer to refund the premium amount of Rs.22,200/- together with interest and sum of Rs.100/- towards costs of postal deposit and prayed before this Forum to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and pecuniary loss on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            7. On the contrary, the authorized signatory appeared on behalf of O.P.No.1 in his submissions contended that this consumer complaint is not maintainable in this Forum due to lack of jurisdiction and the complainant has no loco standi  to prosecute the O.P.No.1 since the case is not maintainable in this Forum. It is submitted that the O.P.No.1 strictly and vehemently denied the claim of the complainant since the O.P.No.1 is an authorized market agent of O.P.No.2 &3. The complainant after going through the policy terms, conditions and benefit voluntarily availed the policy and deposited the amount along with proposal form favoring O.P.No.2 &3. The O.P.No.1 is an independent broker and merely transmitted the aforesaid document to O.P.No.2&3 (Insurance Company). It is also contended that the complainant in his letter dated 12.12.2012 and 17.03.2013 was actually addressed to O.P.No.2 & 3 with a copy to O.P.No.1 since this O.P. is merely a broker it does not have anything with the claim of the complainant. Hence, the O.P.No.1 has not violated the IRDA guidelines, not violated the policy conditions, no role to play and has no responsibility regarding refund of premium by the O.P.No.2&3. The complainant has directly submitted the proposal along with premium amount to the O.P.No.2&3 whose Branch Office is at Bhubaneswar and Head Office is at Mumbai and the complainant has not given any fee, charge or consideration to the O.P.No.1, so the complainant is not even a consumer of O.P.No.1 as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The present complaint is not only based on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations, based on baseless, defamatory and concocted story.  The complainant also failed to raise any cause of action against the O.P.No.1, so the complaint is not maintainable against this O.P.  It is submitted that it is not the liability of O.P.No.1 to pay anything to the complainant and the O.P.No.1 has no caused any mental agony to the complainant and even not liable to pay or compensate the pecuniary loss or costs on account of deficiency in service. He further submitted that allowing any relief to the complainant would lead to gross violation of Consumer Protection Act, hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The O.P.No.1 in support of his argument also cited ten numbers of citations or judgments of different learned Forums and Hon’ble State and National Commissions like in the case of Director General of Police, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Jeevan Lata, reported in II (2006) CPJ 119 (NC) National Commission, New Delhi., Manager, Golden Trust Financial Services Vs. Abdul Mannan Khan, vide FA No. 08/192 of 2008, State Commission, West Bengal, The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Soma Kandu & Anr., vide FA 08/341 State Commission, West Bengal, S.K.Mobarshare Ali Vs. The Senior Divisional Manager and Anr, vide No.FA.08/249 State Commission, West Bengal, Golden Trust Financial Services & Anr. Vs. Smt. Malwa Devi, vide No.75/ 2008 with First Appeal No.79/2008 before State Commission, Ranchi, P.M. Systems & Financial Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Narayan Ch. Mitra and Ors vide No. IV (2007) CPJ 407 West Bengal State Commission, Golden Trust Financial Services Vs. Madhuri Singh vide No.III (2006) CPJ 409, Bihar State Commission, Patna, Ajay Kumar Dhadwal Vs. Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Limited & Another vide No. 11/2012, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh, Swaroop Kumar Vs. The In-charge, Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Limited and Another vide No. 249/2011, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra, Dharmashala,   and Kishori Lal Sharma Vs. Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Limited & Anr., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Chandigarh. With the above submission and in the light of aforesaid citations the O.P.No.1 prayed before this Forum to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.

            8. Similarly, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2&3 in their submissions contended that under Section-3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1938 and the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 the O.P. No.2&3 are engaged in the business of insurance throughout the country and there is no conflict of interest among O.P.No.2&3 hence a common submission made. It is contended that the complainant allegedly stating deficiency in the service on part of O.P.No.2 & 3 but admittedly the complainant never approached to the O.Ps directly but approached through O.P.No.1 for availing the police in dispute. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant to injure the good and reputation of O.P.No.2 & 3 by concealing the true and correct fact. He further contended that it is a settled principle of law that if any person signs any documents it is presumed that he had signed the same after reading and understanding it properly.  As per the terms of policy contract, if the policy is not suitable the policy holder may get his policy cancelled by returning the policy and policy documents within 15 days i.e. free look period from the date of the policy holder received the policy. The Insurance Company will return the premium paid to the complainant after making certain deductions specified therein.  In the present case, the policy was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received but did not approached O.P.No.2 & 3 and got policy cancelled within the free look period implying that the policy holder duly accepted the policy and its documents with its terms and conditions.  Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.  It is further contended that the complainant has not produced any record which suggests that he had approached to the O.P. Company with any such request. The O.P.No.2&3 as per clause 4 (1) and 6 (2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002 sent the policy along with document to the policy holder giving him opportunity to review or cancel the policy within free look period, but the policy holder failed to approach the O.P. within free look period, hence the policy conditions are duly accepted. In support of his argument he has also cited the judgment in Kishore Chandra Rathod Vs. Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 3390 of 2013, NCDRC). In another citation, in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. SBI Life  Insurance Company decided by DCDRF, (North West) New Delhi, on 18.02.2014 (Case No. 935 of 2012).  Further he also cited another citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Mohan Lal Benal Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd and in the case of Haris Kumar Chadha Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd  where it was held that the option of returning the policy within 15 days of receipt i.e. within “the Free-look period”. The said proposition has also been clearly laid down in the case Shrikant Murlidhar Apta Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India vide Revision Petition No. 634 of 2012 decided on 02.05.2013 where National Commission concurred with the findings of Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai that “once 15 days cooling off period is over, policy documents become binding on both the parties and the contents therein are also binding on both of them”. He further submitted that admittedly the complainant applied for the policy on 04.12.2012 vide cheque No.149363 dated 03.12.2012 and the same was received on 05.12.2012 and the complainant requested through his letter dated 12.12.2012 received by O.P.No.2 & 3 on 17.12.2012 for cancellation of said policy in lieu of certain financial burdens faced by him. The letter dated 12.12.2012 of complainant received by O.P. on 17.12.2012 and replied on 25.01.2013 it was communicated that the cancellation could not be processed on account of the signatures on the request application not matching the specimen signatures. Due to that O.P.No.2 & 3 could not even verify the authenticity of the cancellation application. So, the complainant was requested in the letter dated 25.01.2013 for sending fresh signature matching those provided by the same as sample.  The O.P.No.2 & 3 on 05.02.2013 also send a letter to the complainant reminding and reiterating the contents. The complainant despite receiving the letters dated 25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013 paid no heed to the same and deliberately did not comply.  So due to lack of authenticity of applicant the request of the complainants for cancellation of policy could not be verified with regard to letter dated 07.03.2013 which was received by O.P. on 11.03.2013 where it was provided fresh reasons for cancellation  but did not comply letters dated  25.01.2013 and 05.02.2013 by the complainant. The letter dated 07.03.2013 of the complainant was rejected on the ground of the same being sent after the lapse of the free look period and the same was intimated to the complainant on 13.03.2013. Therefore, the complainant has failed to proof deficiency in service on part of the O.P.No.2 & 3 in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (2000) 1 SCC 66 and the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. It is also argued that as per Clause No.6 of explanation and information statement of the complainant he is not entitled for refund of its first premium paid as first installment.  As per the clause Guaranteed Surrender Value at any time is 30% of all premiums paid to that point excluding the premium paid in the first policy year, all extra premiums and any  taxes. The guaranteed surrender value (GSV) is paid only if at least three full year’s premium has been paid. Survival benefits already paid would be deducted from the guaranteed surrendered value. The complainant has paid only first premium, hence he is not entitled to get GSV.  In view of the above fact and circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any refund amount and reliefs claimed in the complaint and even not entitled any monetary compensation and the Forum has no jurisdiction to grant the same, hence prayed before the Hon’ble Forum that the complaint is the abuse process of law and is liable to be dismissed.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions made above by learned counsels for the complainant as well as for the O.Ps in the light of peculiar fact and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the documentary evidence filed by the complainant as well as by the O.Ps and have also gone through the citations filed by the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 as well as for O.P.No.2&3. The points to be decided by this Forum, whether the complainant was applied to the O.Ps for cancellation of his policy in dispute during the ‘free look period’? And whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of his first premium?

10. With regard to the first point made above, we would like to state that the complainant received his policy bond issued by O.Ps on 07/12/2012 and requested for cancellation of the said policy on 12/12/2012 through a registered letter addressed to O.P.No.2 which was received by the O.P.No.2 on 17/12/2012 as admitted in their written statement vide para-7 & 9 and written argument vide Para-5 which is not in dispute. Similarly, the complainant also wrote to O.P.No.2&3 for cancellation of the said policy on 19/12/2012 through another letter by registered post as is evident from the Annexure placed on the case record. Further, the complainant on 07/03/2012 again wrote a letter to the O.P. No.2 along with original policy bond through O.P.No.1 for cancellation of the said policy which was acknowledged by the O.P.No.1 and was also intimated to the O.P.No.2 by O.P.No.1 as is evident from the case record. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the complainant had applied to the O.P.No.2 for cancellation of the said policy in dispute within 15 days of the receipt of the policy i.e. during the ‘free look period’ of the policy which is not denied by the O.P.No.2 as is evident from the written argument vide para-5 of the O.P.No.2 &3 placed in the case record. However, the O.P. No.2 contended that due to mismatch of the signature of the complainant, the company could not cancel the insurance policy and accordingly intimated the complainant in their letter dated 25/01/2013 and the complainant was asked to send fresh signature matching those provided by the same as sample. It is also contended that the complainant was again reminded in another letter dated 05/02/2013 reiterating the same but the complainant despite receiving the letters dated 25/01/2013 and 05/02/2013 paid no heed and deliberately did not comply with the request made by the O.P. No.2&3 so it could not be verified. The O.P.No.2&3 further argued that the letter dated 07/03/2013 of the complainant was also received by the O.P. No.2&3 on 11/03/2013 but that was again without rectifying the existing errors and the reason for withdrawing the policy was differed. It is submitted that the application/ request dated 07/03/2013 was rejected on the ground of same being sent after the lapse of the ‘Free Look Period’ and the same was duly intimated to the complainant on 13/03/2013. Similarly, as per the submissions made by O.P.No.1 with documentary proof, the date of submission of proposal by the complainant is 04/12/2012, date of issue of policy is 07/12/2012, date of dispatch of the policy is 12/12/2012 and the date of declining for cancellation of policy is 24/12/2012 due to mismatch of signature and the date of declining for cancellation of policy due to beyond Free Look Period is 11/03/2013. We have verified the pleading and perused the documentary proof filed by the O.Ps and in the foregoing fact and circumstances of the case; we would like to view that we could not find a single scrap of letter or document in support of their claim. The O.P.No.2&3 have failed to substantiate their claim and not produced any documentary evidence or letter to show that the complainant was actually intimated the matter during the free look period and we also failed to understand why the O.P.No.2&3 not produced the copies of those letters sent to the complainant on the materials dates as claimed by the O.P. No.2&3 during their arguments. However, it is a fact that the O.P. No.2 has admitted that he has received his application for cancellation of the policy during the free look period but denied on the ground of mismatch of signature. But, to this effect, there is not an iota of documentary evidence produced by the O.Ps and simply contended that the signature was mismatched. A party to the dispute has to plead and prove his case accordingly but in this case, the O.Ps only pleaded their case but failed to prove. In our considered view, the veracity of the versions of O.P.No.2&3 is in doubt since the O.Ps deliberately delayed the matter with an aim to avoid the request of the complainant to cancel the policy in dispute during the free look period and has taken pretext of mismatching of signature and other details of the complainant which is not believable. In the instant case, on verification of documents placed on record, we feel that the O.P. No.2 has not followed the Regulations-6(1) and 6(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulation, 2002 since the O.Ps have failed to honour the options of returning the policy by the complainant during the Free Look Period. As per the above Regulations made by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), the complainant is at liberty to review the terms and conditions of the policy and return the same stating the reasons for his objection for cancellation within 15 days, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid subject to deduction of a proportionate of the same towards administrative charges and other expenses. That apart, we feel that there is reason for opting cancellation of the policy by the complainant in view of the peculiar features and policy specifications. In the present case on meticulous perusal of the policy specifications mentioned in the policy bond bearing No.500-9281675 dated 07/12/2012 placed on the case record, it appears that the date of maturity of the policy is 07/12/2068 and in the premium details it has been mentioned that the term of the policy is for 15 years with last premium due date as on 07/12/2026. Similarly, as per the plan details, the policy is titled as Bharati AXA Life Aajeevan Sampatti and a sum of Rs.2,09,570/- has been assured to be paid to the complainant under the policy with benefit up to 07/12/2068 with rider benefit. In the above context, we would like to say that this is a policy with annual premium of Rs.20,200/- where the complainant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.3,03,000/- towards premium amount during a period of 15 years and he will get an assured sum of Rs.2,09,570/- on the date of maturity on 07/12/2068 i.e. after elapse of 56 years. In the foregoing fact and circumstances, we are astonished and annoyed to note that this sort of insurance policy is being promoted by the insurance company to exploit the poor consumers like the complainant which is nothing but a good example of unfair trade practice which is prohibited and punishable under Section 14(1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the said policy is liable to be cancelled as per the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holders’ Interests) Regulation, 2002 vide Regulation-7(n). As per the said regulation, there is a provision for cancellation of the policy on grounds of misrepresentation, fraud, non-disclosure of material facts or non-cooperation of insured which is also applicable to the insurer in this case. In the instant case, we feel that the O.Ps allured the complainant before issuance of the policy and have misrepresented the basic features of the policy in dispute and not disclosed the material facts to him and have taken heavy premium amounts with an aim to deceive the complainant which is prohibited under law. It is ridicule to point out that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,03,000/- towards premium during a period of 15 years @ Rs.20,200/- per year and he will get an assured sum of Rs.2,09,570/- after elapse of 56 years on the date of maturity  i.e. on 07/12/2068. In our considered view, this amounts to unfair trade practice which is carried out by the O.Ps for exploitation of innocent consumers. There is also deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps for non-cancellation of the policy of the complainant during the free look period as provided under relevant insurance law and regulations. In that view of the case, we would like to say that no citation can change the factual position of a case and the citations filed by the O.Ps can’t derive any strength in support of their case. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the citations and authorities cited by the O.Ps in support of their case as discussed above due to distinguishable factual difference of the case in hand and the citations filed by the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 as well as for O.P.No.2&3 which do not carry any merit in view of peculiar fact and circumstances of the case deserve no consideration hence rejected. In the light of the above discussion, deliberation and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, in our considered view we would like to say that the complainant has applied to the O.Ps for cancellation of the policy in dispute during the ‘Free Look Period’ hence he is entitled to get refund of his premium amount after deduction of administrative charges and other statutory expenses made by the O.Ps as discussed above. The pleas taken by O.P.No.2&3 regarding mismatching of the signature of the complaint not proved since the O.Ps failed to prove their case. Hence, the O.Ps are liable to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,200/- to the complainant after deducting the administrative charges and other expenses. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps and the O.Ps are liable to compensate the complainant due to their negligence and deliberate delay and deceitful actions for non-cancellation of the policy and non-refund of the premium amount due to unfair trade practice.

11. In this case as far as the amount of compensation and relief is concerned, we would like to say that the complainant has prayed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pecuniary loss and Rs.100/- for expenses towards postal orders and prayed to refund the premium amount of Rs.22,200/- along with interest and cost. In this case, as discussed above, we are agreed to direct the O.Ps to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,200/- after deduction of administrative charges and statutory expenses the complainant has deposited Rs.20,200/- towards premium but not Rs.22,200/- as contended in the complaint. With regard to compensation for harassment, we would like to say that on perusal of the documents, we find that the complainant has claimed very high amount towards compensation without any justification and corroborative documentary evidence. However, we feel that the complainant has been harassed and has gone through mental agony due to the unfair trade practice of O.Ps which is proved beyond doubt as discussed above. We are also convinced that no amount can compensate the mental agony suffered by a person. We, therefore, feel that it would be just and proper to direct the O.Ps. to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and harassment in the fact and circumstance of the case to meet the ends of justice and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation since the complainant has also hired the services of an Advocate to file his consumer dispute and to proceed with the case. Accordingly, the case of the complainant is partly allowed against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to refund the premium and to pay compensation and cost to the complainant as discussed above.

12. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to refund the premium amount of Rs.20,200/- to the complainant after deductions of administrative charges and other statutory expenses. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a modest sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/-  for cost of litigation. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same from the O.Ps under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.

13. The order is pronounced on this day of 11^th July 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of