SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY,   PRESIDENT           

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The facts in brief are that  the complainant No. 1 is a retired Primary School Teacher and being convinced by the OP-2,  agent of OP-1 Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., he decided to buy Insurance Policies believing  that the policies are one time premium policies. Complainant No.1 invested Rs.1,90,000/- to the OP-1 against policies. Complainant No.1 is the Policy Holder and Complainant No. 2 is the Life Assured. The OPs sold the subject policies bearing Nos. 51732905, 52071056 & 52071181 to the complainant No. 1 with fraudulent  intention and by misleading the facts allured the complainant No.1 to purchase those policies. Several correspondences were made between the complainant No. 1 and OP-1 but  in vain. Ultimately, legal notice dated 08.05.2017 was sent to the OP-1 directing them to refund Rs.1,90,000/- along with interest  at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 20.02.2015 till actual payment. The legal notice is unattended. The attitude of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in service for which the complainants have suffered mental agony. Hence, the Consumer Complaint.

The OP-2 has contested the case by filing a written version and also denied all the allegations made out in the complaint petition. The specific case of  the answering OP is that  the complainant No. 1 being an educated person had purchased  two insurance policies after going through all the terms and conditions of the policy documents. The policies term were 12 years and the complainants were fully aware of  the policies that the policies were not one time premium policies. Option was also given to the complainant No. 1 to cancel the policies within 15 days of the free look period. Complainant No. 1 did not cancel the policies within the free look period. As such, he is debarred from  raising such plea. There is no deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, the answering OP has prayed for dismissal  of the complaint with cost of Rs.20,000/-.          

In spite of service of notice OP-1 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP-1.

DECISION WITH REASONS

            Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by the adversaries. Both parties also filed Brief Notes of Arguments.

            It remains  undisputed that complainant No.1 being a retired Primary School Teacher had purchased two Insurance Policies from OP-1 Reliance Insurance Company Ltd. through OP-2, A.B. Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and complainant No. 2 is the Life Assured.

            The main grievance of the complainant No. 1 is  that the subject  policies were mis - sold being convinced as a single premium policy and further alleged that the signatures appeared in the proposal forms are not pertains to them. Therefore, the complainant No. 1 vide letter dated 29.06.2016 requested the OP-1 to cancel the policies and refund the policy amount and  the OP-1 turned down such request vide letter dated 15.07.2016 on the ground  that request for cancellation is beyond the free look period of 15 days. It is  true that the complainant  No. 1 did not avail the benefit of free look period. On perusal of the documents annexed with the consumer petition it appears  that at the time of commencement of the policies the monthly income of the complainant No. 1 was 8,230/- and from such income he has to maintain this family. Monthly pension of Rs.8,230/- annually comes to Rs.98,760/- where the annual premium is Rs.1,90,000/-.

            The Ld. Advocate for the complainants has submitted that the policies were sold by misrepresentation. She has further contended that being a retired Primary School Teacher and annual income of Rs. 98,760/-, it is not possible for the complainant No. 1 to pay annual premium of Rs.1,90,000/- per year after maintaining his family.

            On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the OP-2 has submitted that  no adverse presumption can be drawn on the consumer complaint as the complainant No. 1 is a retired Primary School Teacher. He has put his signatures  on  the proposal forms understanding its contents and also has not availed the benefit of free look period.

            There is specific allegation of the complainants  that forgery of their signatures on the proposal forms. Complainants made a prayer for appointment of hand-writing expert and OP-1 / Insurer was directed to produce the relevant documents on 29.05.2018 which are under their custody. OP-1 did not produce any documents in terms of order dated 27.04.2018. Therefore, there is no scope to consider the allegation of  forgery and / or  misrepresentation. It is true that the complainant No. 1  applied for cancellation of policies stating  the  facts of misrepresentation and also his liability as well as impossibility to continue the policies by paying premium for  7 years being a retired Primary School Teacher with meager source of income.

            No such terms & conditions has come before this Forum from the side of the OP-1 / Insurance Company regarding forfeiture of the deposited premium being not availed the free look period benefit. OP-2 is a broker and they have no authority to consider the request  of cancellation of  subject policies. Policy amount was deposited to OP-1 and they withhold the amount. Thus, there is no liability of OP-2 in this regard.

No evidence to the contrary is produced by the OP-1 / Insurer before this Forum. Therefore, it   cannot be said that the complainant-1 is fully aware regarding terms & conditions of the policies form and any Opportunity was given to explain anything written in the proposal forms. When the policies were lapsed, the complainant No. 1 is entitled only the surrender value as per terms of the policies. 

            Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of  the consumer case, we are of the opinion that  the complainants are entitled to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,90,000/- along with simple interest   at the rate of 7 percent per annum from the date of cancellation request dated 29.06.2016 till  realization. It is settled principle that when interest being allowed, the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation. Complainants are also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only.

In result, the case succeeds in part.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against  the OP-2 without any cost and is also allowed ex parte against the OP-1 / Insurance Company with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only.

OP-1 is directed to refund  the principal amount of  Rs.1,90,000/-  to the complainant No. 1 along with compensation in the form of simple interest  at the rate of 7  percent  per annum with effect from the date of  request of cancellation of policies i.e. 29.06.2016 till the date of full refund  along with litigation cost  to the complainant  No. 1 within one month from the date of this order.

Liberty be given to the complainant No. 1 to put the order in execution, if the OP-1 transgresses to comply the order.