Orissa

Rayagada

CC/45/2017

Sri Chunni Las Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Birla Life Inusrance - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 45/ 2017.                                 Date.    2    . 2  . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

 

Sri Chunni Lal Sahu, Aged about 56 Yrs,S/o Late Bishnu Sankar

Sahu,GandhiNagar,  PO/Dist-Rayagada-765001. Mob-9437143370

 

                                                                                    …        Petitioner/Complainant.

 

Versus.

 

01.Branch Manager,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited,

New Colony,PO/PS/DIST- Rayagada.Odisha-765001

 

02.Mr.Santanu Kumar Subudhi,Agent/Advisor,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited,

New Colony,PO/PS/DIST- Rayagada.Odisha-765001.

 

03.Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited

G.-Corp Tech OPark,5^th & 6^th Floor,Kasar Vadavali,

Near Hypercity Mall,Ghodbunder Road,Thane(w) 400601.    .

 

04.MD & Chief Executive Officer,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited

Registered Office: One Indiabulls Centre Tower 1,

16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013                 

                                                                        …..       Respondents/Opposite Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri L.N.Padhy and Sri S.K.Sharma, Advocates, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri G. Sai Prasad, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

 

                Factual matrix of the present  Complaint is that, the Complainant was the Manager of a liquor shop by the highway running through Rayagada  and that the O.P.s through their agent/Advisor as O.P.No. 2 above, taking the privilege of his acquaintance with the Complainant canvassed him to invest in their products with promises of skyhigh benefits. Allured as thus on dt.16.12.2016, the complainant signed some pre-printed forms with  unfilled dotted lines on good faith and handed over the premium amount of Rs.2,00,000/- through cheque bearing No. 034376 dtd 16.12.2016 , and another a cash of Rs.1,200/- for expenses of medical check ups, as demanded by the O.P.2. alongwith passport size photograph and photo copy of PAN card. Though it was assured that, the policy bond would be despatched to his address in the policy within a week’s time, but the Complainant did not receive the policy till 02.01.2017, i.e. even after 16 days after he had paid the premium amount. During the mean time, in pursuance to the Supreme court observations, the State Govt of Odisha, through orders the liquor shop the Complainant was working in made shut closed. Thus  out of great mental injury , on 02.01.2017 he left for Ranchi, for his hometown along with family and he was made there in for medical treatment and rest.On returning from Ranchi on dt. 28.02.2017 and the policy paper was handed over to him by one of their  Managers,Mr.Rajendra Prasad and that on perusal of the copies of the Proposal form, attached to the policy, it was found  some vital informations recorded in the form are deliberately made falsely, as to the health status and medical check ups. As the Complaint never had been to any pathology for his health check ups and as the Complainant  is a chronic patient of Diabetes and Hyper tension and High blood pressure, and the fact was disclosed to the O.P.2 at the time of proposal, it was  well understood by the Complainant, that in case of any misfortunate event, he was  not to get any benefit from the policy for suppression of fact. Hence he immediately contacted the agent i.e.O.P.2 and on dt. 01.03.2017 for cancellation of the policy and again through an email on dt.23.03.2017.In the meanwhile the wife of Complainant had already registered another complaint on the same matter vide reference no. CAS-1176231-w6JOY9.But on 02.03.2017 one note from the O.P.1 received stating that, the limit of free look period is gone, and the Complainant can not get the policy cancelled . Again the O.P. company  through its letter dtd. 29.03.2017 replied that the free look period is over, hence there is no chance of cancellation of the policy. Further the policy proposal form was incomplete and virulent of the IRDA policy and forging of medical reports. Hence there is, per se the Complainant is bad faith,misrepresentation,malfeasance, missale and unfair trade practice by the O.P.s dealing with the Complainant to part his hard earned money, thus the present complaint praying for direction to the O.P.s to cancel the policy and refund his money with interest interalia cost of the litigation.

02.      The Complainant has filed the copies of his medical prescriptions of 2016 and 2017,copy of the policy paper and the copy of the proposal form along with affidavit.Considered.

03.    The Forum considering the Complaint, the documents in support of it and having heard from the Complainant found there is prima facie deficiency in service and  admitted the Complaint and  notice u/s 13(1)(a) of the Act 68 of 1986 adjourning the case to Dt._2.8.2017  for filing of counter by O.P.s.

04.      The O.P. No. 3 filed his written statement to content that, the complaint does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the C.P.Act 1986 and that there was no unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.s. The O.P.s produces section 2 (d)(ii) of C.P.Act 1986 to refute the Complainant to be a consumer. The policy in question is wealth Secure Plan which is a market linked policy and ae speculative in nature and was taken for investment purpose, hence does not falls within the provision of Consumer disputes. The proceedings before  the forums are summary in nature and disputes relating to fraud & forgery should not be adjudicated by the consumer forums. They contend that while signing the proposal form, all the terms and conditions were explained to the Complainant and that policy was issued on 13.01.2017 and was delivered to the Complainant on dt. 27.01.2017 and that, the complainant could avail the opportunity of cancelling the policy within 15 days hence receipt of the policy. He contends that only on dt. 02.03.2017 the complaint for the first time writes to O.P. for cancellation of the policy, after lapse of more than one month, hence the complainant can not get back the full amount as that would cause loss to the O.P.. And as there was a contract, courts cannot go beyond the immediate meaing of the conditions stipulated in it, when the O.P. has performs its part of contract the Complainant can not be estopped from challenging the contract.Hence there is no fault and negligence on the part of the O.P.s. The O.P.s contends that, it was untrue to contend that  the Complainant had not been for medical examination by the O.P.s before issuance of policy but he had been there for medical examination in person and if the Complainant refuses to admit it, he should be required to file strict proof of it.

05.      The O.P.3 alongwith its counter filed the policy documents like proposal form, medical examination report etc. considered.

06.      On the other hand the OP.1 , 2 & 4 neither appeared nor filed any counter in the case, despite sufficient chances given to them within four months of its admission, hence they set ex parte as per Sec.13(2)(b)(ii) of the C.P.Act.

07.       Pursuing complaint, counter and evidences, the forum before delving into detailed adjudication, sorted out the following issues for consideration:-

i)          Whether the investment made by the Complainant is a speculative transaction hence not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?

ii)         whether the claim of the Complainant is vitiated in terms of the present contract of insurance ?

iii)         Is there any remedy available to the parties at lis ?

08.       The contention of the Complainant is that, he being suffered from mental disorders coupled with acute diabetics and hypertensions and finding his life insecure, was allured by the assurances of the agent i.e. O.P. No. 2 that, the policy would cover his life and in case his death his nominee and family would get a handsome sum assured under the policy. He was orally made understood of the benefits of sky high without explaining him of the side affects. He is not so educated as to understand the technical terms of the policy. He just wanted to see if the policy was covering the life and if there was any death benefits. He was also told that, he was to pay only for three years and the rest of life till his 70 he would be covered with insurance of life. He was just an employee of a liquor shop and it is well advertent to the knowledge of the Agent O.P.2 and even to the O.P.1, but deliberately to fulfill their target of performance they with promises of sky high benefits non-existent extorted his hard earned money, got his signatures on the dotted lines of the pre-printed forms, unfilled and the contents unexplained, but in good faith the Complainant signed on the form as and where he was advised to. As his prime objective was to cover his life and he had never indulged in any direct business activities or well apt towards investment in share market for reasons of unsoundness of mind and as well as of ill health, no question of Speculative transaction arises, but it is the cropped concept of the O.P. company only to deprieve the Complainant of his hard earned money, in a deceptive manner.

09.       On the other hand the OP.s contended that, the said policy is purely an unit linked and the amount deposited by the complainant were allocated in different funds of share market and there is no speculation on share market and they have offered the maturity sum to the complainant as per policy terms and conditions. They further contended that according to the guidelines of I.R.D.A of India there is 15 days free cancellation period of the policy from the date of receipt of the bond and the period has been given to the complainant to read thoroughly the policy terms and condition and if the policy holder did not agree with the terms he has every right to cancel the policy with in the 15 days period of receipt of the bond, and if he do not approach the OP.s within the time then the policy will continue according to the terms and conditions and he should obey the same till its maturity.

10.       As the policy holder and OP Company made a contract through proposal and both of them are bound by certain terms and conditions of the policy and all has to obey the terms and conditions mentioned there in the policy documents.

11.       The counsel for OP has relied a decision of Hon’ble National Commission, in the case between Ramlal Aggarwala Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2013(2) CPR 389(NC)  where in the Hon’ble Commission stated to held that, unit linked policies are speculative and are taken for investment purpose.

12.                   From the contentions of the learned counsel for the  O.P.s and pursuing the judgment cited by him, this forum, contends to overrule the relevancy of the subject matter of this judgments in the present context, rather treat the judgment  cited is of Personam in nature and has no precedential substances as to the present case. Of the relevancy of judgments, Sections 41 and 42 of  Evidence Act  draw a distinction between Judgments in rem and Judgments in personam . Each case has their own precedents and the Judgement cited by the Honble Commission as above was of personam in nature and does not stand as precedent to the present case.

13.       Further more, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs Major Bahadur Sigh has observed that “courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed observations of the courts are neither to be usual as Euclid’s Theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been sited. Judgments of the courts are not be construed as statues, judges interpret statutes. They do not interpret judgments.”

14.       The word speculative business/transaction is not defined anywhere in the C.P.Act 1986. However, the definition of 'speculative transaction' in section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, as under:-

" 'Speculative transaction' means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrip ".

15.       The above definition gives a simple test for deciding what a speculative transaction means. If a contract for sale or purchase is ultimately settled and no actual delivery of the goods was effected under the settlement then it is a speculative transaction. The requirement of section 30 of the Indian Contract Act of the existence of the intention of the parties even at the time of the original contract not to give or take delivery of the goods in order to make it a speculative/wagering transaction is not dispensed with for the purpose of the contemplating the clause and if actual delivery is not given/taken under the settlement of contract, then the intention of the parties at the time of the contract becomes immaterial. Thus, the true test is delivery of commodities/goods as per the contract, including a forwarding contract. Profit/loss in respect of unperformed contracts is considered speculation profit/loss. In short, in order that a transaction may fall within the scope of the expression 'speculative transaction', it must be a transaction in which a contract for purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips.

16.       The explanation to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 of the same Act shall apply in relation to speculation business as they apply in relation to any other business.

Sub-section (2) of section 72………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

[Explanation-Where any part of the business of a company (other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "capital gains" and "Income from other sources", or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares] "

17.       Moreover, trading in derivatives, referred to in Section 2(ac) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, carried out on a recognized stock exchange is not deemed to be a speculative transaction. Recognized stock exchanges are NSE, BSE, MCX Stock Exchange, and the United Stock Exchange of India. The transaction will be treated as ‘Non-speculative business income’. If shares are purchased on a particular day and sold next day, it is not treated as ‘Speculative business'.

18.       The brochure of the present policy WEALTH SECURE PLAN floated by the O.P.s  a print out of which is  filed by the Complainant, which in its fore page the objective is described as The Present insurance policy, Birla Sun Life Insurance Wealth Secure Plan or  BSLI Wealth Secure Plan is a non-participating unit linked life insurance plan. Linked Insurance Products do not offer any liquidity during the first five years of the contract. The policyholder will not be able to withdraw/surrender the monies invested in Linked Insurance Products completely or partially till the end of the fifth year from inception. The death benefit payable on the death of the life insured. The minimum Basic Sum Assured is your Basic Premium payable in a policy year multiplied by the higher of 7 or the number of years to attain age 70 divided by 4, for entry ages 45 and above.

 

19.       The salient features described as -

i.          Pay premiums for a limited term and get life cover for whole life

ii.          Flexibility to choose from 3 investment options to suit your investment needs

iii.         Flexibility to add top-ups whenever you have additional savings

iv.         Flexibility of partial withdrawals to meet any emergency fund requirements

v.         Tax benefits under Section 80C and Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

 

20.       “Birla Sun Life Insurance Wealth Secure Plan is a Life Insurance policy, which assures the life cover and guarantees a sum assured.”

21.       The complainant has invited our notice to the observation in the case of CTT Vs. Arvind investments Ltd. 192 ITR 365(Cal.) wherein it is held that,” if the entire business activity of a company consists of purchase and sale of shares of other companies, then the entire business will be treated as speculation business.”

22.       Further more in ANZ Grindlays Bank vs. C.I.T.(2004)88 ITV 53(Del.)  it is held that,” dealing in Govt. Securities does not amount to dealing in shares.”

 

23.       Considering the present Complaint in perspective of the above logical conclusion, we did not find if the Complainant had ever engaged in speculation business, he had invested in a policy floated by the O.P.s only to secure his future old with life coverage. At the time of subscribing the policy he was 54 years of old, an ordinary employee  of a liquor Off shop, ailing with diabetic, mental disorder and hypertension can not be rationally  expected to opt for wind fall gain jumping to the share market, a totally unknown field of business. There is also no record to show that he had ever gambled in any share market or any other business.

24.       As thus concluding the contemplations we contend that the investment made by the Complainant in the instant policy to secure his life is no way a speculative transaction hence, the Complaint gains all merit be adjudicated under the C.P.Act 1986.And as such the issue no 1 is satisfied.

25.       Against the contention of the O.P.s that the policy was issued on 13.01.2017 and was delivered to the Complainant on dt. 27.01.2017 and that, the complainant could avail the opportunity of cancelling the policy within 15 days hence receipt of the policy  i.e. within dt. 11.02.2017 does not hold water to waive the right of the Complainant to cencell the policy and get back his money within 15 days from the day, he actually received, i.e. on dt. 28.02.2017. He attached the O.P. s on the issue of service of notice, that the notice shall be construed only from the date of his actual notice and not that, when it was posted. It ( the service) can be presumed but with caution and limitation and the presumption is rebuttable.

 

26.       The legal proposition in context of presumption of service by registered post can be found under . Here it is pertinent to mention that presumption of service by registered post is a permissible presumption i.e. a rebuttable presumption and not an inevitable presumption. In the case of Mst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B.Gujral & Anr. The Honble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of presumption of service of letter sent under postal cover, and observed that presumption under  is a permissible and not an inevitable presumption. Neither  nor  compel the Court to draw a presumption. The presumption may or may not be drawn. On the facts and circumstances of a case, the Court may refuse to draw the presumption.

27.       Learned counsel for the Complainant would further rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment reported in M.D.Thomas vs. P.S.Jaleel and another in 2009 (14) SCC 398. wherein the Apex Court has held that even the notice received by the family member of the accused will not be enough to prove that service of notice on the accused is completed.The honble court held thus”…. the notice of demand was served upon the wife of the appellant and not the appellant. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that complainant-respondent had not complied with the requirement of giving notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act.” 

28.      Supreme Court of India,in Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Vasant Baburao Ashterkar And Ors on 17 January, 1992 held thus-        

 “Thus in our view the presumption of service of a letter sent by registered post can be rebutted by the addressee by appearing as witness and stating that he never received such letter. If the acknowledgement due receipt contains the signatures of the addressee himself and the addressee as a witness states that he never received such letter and the acknowledgement due does not bear his signature and such statement of the addressee is believed then it would be a sufficient rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him.”

29.       The O.P.s could not show us if the policy documents were actually delivered to the Complainant or the acknowledgement of receipt of the document was actually made by the Complainant or his family members, or if the address mentioned for delivery was actually was the address in the policy.

30.            Further the learned counsel for the Complainant drew our attention to the provisions of Reg. 04(6) of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, which contemplates that, every proposal shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions thereof shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposals by the insurer.And the proposal of the Complainant was made on 16.12.2016 and payment of premium through cheque was paid on the same day, it is admitted by both the Complainant and O.P.. Hence, as per calculation the acceptance of the policy and certificate thereof should have been reached to the Complainant within 15 days hence the dt.16.12.2016, i.e. on or before 01^st day of January,2017. Hence, there was a lapse on the part of the O.P. company itself and the Complainant left for Ranchi from his address on the policy for which he could not receive the policy  till 28.02.2017 is quite reasonable and when the submission is steady, nothing emerges doubtful.

 

31.             As thus this forum holds that, the policy was never delivered to the Complainant till 28.02.2017 and his right to exercise to cancel the policy within 15 days shall begun from dt.28.02.2017 and his option communicated to the O.P. on dt. 02.03.2017  was rightly made within the time frame and can not be repudiated by the O.P.

 

32.       The term deficiency I defined under Sec.2 (1) (g) of the C.P.Act 1986, which reads as followed. 2(1)(g) ‘deficiency means any fault ‘in perfect shortcomings or inadequacy in quality, nature, and manner or performance which is required to be intentional by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

33.       Here in the section the word ‘in pursuance of a contract’ leaves no ambiguity to the question that any service, the parties bound to perform under a contract, may be that contract private or public, implicit or explicit, but arising out of a contract, and on terms of the contract the parties are bound  to ,which the plea of the learned counsel for the OP that the contract of insurance is based on good faith i.e. the doctrine of Uberrimae fidei  and any fraud practiced there ousts the jurisdiction of  the consumer court in the matter of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops ,does not hold any water.

34.       Hence, we hold that the O.P. is admitting that, there is a fraud in the present insurance contract, and that this forum is ousts its jurisdiction to go into the detailed enquiry in the fraud.

 35.      We are obviously are not intending to enquire into the fraud the O.P. has played in dealing with the Complainant to rob of his hard earned money. But we are constrained into only if there was any deficiency in pursuance to the contract practiced by the O.P.s.

36.       As the present dispute is all arises of an agreement we are to consider some important aspects of a valid agreement. In our country, except so far as specifically provided for and covered by any other legislation, the matter relating to all agreements constituting substratum of a valid contract are subjected to Indian Contract Act 1872.

37.       Unlike in the fact, law of contract has in recent times is assuming a new and wide dimensions. The Insurers practicing concluding contracts in non standardized forms. Such contract contains a large number of terms and conditions which restrict and often excludes the liability of the Insuring Companies under the contract. In the ordinary way, the insured has no time to read them, and if read them, he would probably not understand them.

38.                   The Individual therefore deserves to be protected against the possibilities of exploitation inherent in such contracts. The courts shall evolve/ has evolved certain modes to protect the affected party i.e. invoking the doctrine of fundamental breach or by finding that the terms are unreasonable or that there was misrepresentation about them.

39.       .           And considering the essence of Sec.23, reproducing all of them is apprehended of lengthening the conclusion. We hold that every agreement made for or about any matter or thing which is either forbidden by status or would defeat the provisions of any lay, or the court regards it as opposed to public policy, is unlawful and ipso fact void.

40.       The Counsel has pointed us many irregularities in the proposal form which is accepted as the contract signed and delivered by the Complainant to the O.P.  First the Complainant is a highschool drop out, which is mentioned in the proposal against educational qualification as SSC. Obviously the proposal form is filled up by the agent. Though the agent very well personally acquainted with the Proposer and knows that the Complainant is no way related to any Variety store, in the proposal against name of business it is written as Variety Store and the Complainant is shown as owner which fact was untrue.Though the Complainant has high blood and urine sugar and high blood pressure and if there were any pathological diagnosis it could be well revealed, but the medical examination  report  purported to be made by the Panel Practitioners of the O.P. Company attached to the proposal form shown as all normal, which is quite contrary.

41.       In proof of his contention the Complainant produced the medical prescriptions of Diabetic care Centre dtd. 06.07.2016 and  07.10.2016 Prescription of Dr.P.K.Choudhury of Mind and Brain Clinic of Kolkata dtd. 14.04.2016  & ,Dt.25.11.2017 advising treatment for mental abnormality and blood pressure.

42.       The learned counsel further attracted our attention to the provisions of Reg 3 (4) of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, which contemplates “Where, for any reason, the proposal and other connected papers are not filled by the prospect, a certificate may be incorporated at the end of proposal form from the prospect that the contents of the form and documents have been fully explained to him and that he has fully understood the significance of the proposed contract” . But though the proposal was filled in by the Agent i.e.O.P.No. 2 , he has not made any declaration thereto.

43.       Further the ECG  of the Complainant is purported to be  done on dt. 03.01.2017 at Brahmapur, some 210 Km away from where the Proposor resides, the ECG graph is not signed by the patient, it could not be  explained by the O.P.s by which means were the

44.             The doctrine of Uberrimae fidei or “utmost good faith” was developed centuries ago, “insureds were considered morally obligated to disclose all information material to the risk the insurer was asked to shoulder, it forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain, from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.It was a time that, the concept was practiced only in marine insurance, where there were no detail documentary proof were required while taking insurance policy and the insurer had to underwrite the insurance on the disclosure of the insured only. Now in the changing situation, where, with out substantial documentary proof, an insurance policy is not issued, without medical check ups by the Medical Examiners appointed by the Insurance Company itself and not by any examiner of insured’s choice and with all documentary evidences for all information which is substantially depended for issuance of policy.Further more insurance contracts are bilateral being in the nature of mutual agreements imposing obligations of a reciprocal nature upon the insurer and the insured. and if either party fails to observe the utmost good faith the contract may be avoided by the other. This is a principle of universal application to all types of insurance contracts. The obligation to deal fairly and honestly rests to an equal degree upon both parties to a policy.

45.             Deciding the case In Lakshmi Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bibi Padma Wati, Justice Tek Chand, J.on Sep-20-1960, held thus-

“An attempt should be to construe a contract in liberal manner so as to accomplish the purpose or the object for which it is made. In the absence of ambiguity, neither party can be favoured but where the construction is doubtful, the Courts lean strongly against the party, who prepared the contract. Where in insurance contract, there is a susceptibility of two interpretations, the one favorable to the insured is to be preferred.”

46.       The reason for this rule is, that usually, the insured has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed, and the language of the contract is already written out, and is selected with great care and deliberation by expert legal advisers acting exclusively in the interest of the insurance company.

47.       Before we part, we hold that, the O.P. Company represented by all the O.P.s above have deliberately mis represented the present Complainant and to succeed to meet their target and for their own benefit has mis sold the policy to the Complainant causing him part with his hard earned money and inflicting great mental & financial  injury and the contract of insurance being  devoid of legal sanctions in terms of the contract act and also against the public policy, the contentions of the  O.P.s there is willful fault imperfection short comings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by them in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service dismissed.

As thus the Complaint is allowed with cost.

ORDER

i.          All the O.P.s are hereby severally and collaterally take steps for cancellation of the Policy bearing No. 007175704 of BSLI Wealth Secure Plan issued in the name of the Complainant considering his application dtd. 02.03.2017 as above in the manner as if the offer of the Complainant made within the free look period of fifteen days , and

ii.         Refund the premium amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakh ) paid against the policy with 12% interest from the date of insurance as above till the date of payment.

iii.        The O.P.s are hereby directed to pay severally and collaterally an amount of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand) as cost of this litigation.

                       

            This is to be complied by the O.Ps within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Serve the copies of the  order to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          2^nd.   Day of        February,  2018.

 

                            Member.                            Member.                                             President