Order No. 27  dt.  02/11/2016

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the OP No.1 and 2 approached the complainant to invest the amount in the Life Insurance Scheme of Birla Sun Life Insurance  and told that if the complainant paid the EMI continuously  for three years the complainant can withdraw the amount with benefit. The complainant paid installment of Rs.2,02,512.61 and after the said payment the complainant went to abroad after return from there after nine months she found the policy where from he came to learnt that the policy is for 20 years and the OP  made unfair trade practice with the complainant . The complainant requested the Ops to return the money but no reply was given and ultimately the complainant sent a Lawyer’s notice and no action was taken by the Ops for which the complainant filed this case praying for return of the money as well as compensation.

            The OP contested the case by filing a written version whereby the OP denied  all the material allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant never raised any objection at the time of payment of the money or after receiving the policy. The agent has not been made a party in this case and in absence of him the allegation made against him cannot be entertained. It is submitted that the complainant is an educated person must have gone through the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of filing the application.  As per clause 6 (2) of IRDA Regulations, 2002 “ while acting under regulation 6(1) in forwarding the policy to the insured , the insurer shall inform by letter forwarding the policy that he has a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document to review the terms and conditions of the policy and where the insured disagrees to any of those terms and conditions, he has the option to return the policy stating reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to refund of the premium paid, subject only to  deduction of a proportionate risk premium for the period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges.

            Herein this case the complainant did not lodge any complain during the free look period and on this point various judgment have been pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court . The Hon’ble National Commission has also held concurring the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court. Considering all these aspects the Ops prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant paid premium of Rs.2,02,513/- with an idea that she will get back the substantial amount after payment for three years but when she received policy after return from abroad she came to learn that the policy was for twenty years and she would be getting the benefit after reaching the age of 83 years. On perusal of the policy she wanted to get back the amount paid by her but no reply was given by the Ops. Accordingly the complainant having no alternative had to file  this case praying for return of the amount and also for compensation for unfair trade practice.

            The Ld. Lawyer for the Ops argued that the complainant is an educated lady and after going through the terms and policy she filled in the forms and supplied all the information to the Ops and she had the opportunity to return the policy during the free look period but she did  not avail of that opportunity and filed this case making some allegations against the Ops.

            The Ld. Lawyer for the Ops in support of her contention cited various judgements from Hon’ble Supreme Court, National Commission etc., which supports the contention of the Ops. Accordingly the Ld. Lawyer for the Ops prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submission of the respective parties  it is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for the policy in favour of the complainant and it will be presumed that she had every idea regarding the fate of the said  policy.  The complainant after getting the policy did not avail of the opportunity to return the policy within the free look period but the complainant after the lapse of several months came to this Forum praying for direction upon Ops to return the amount which she paid towards the premium, such plea is neither tenable nor acceptable in view of the judgements pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and NCDRC., only a few judgements are cited in this respect: Prema and Ors Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. IV (2006) CPJ 239 (NC);  General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs Chandmull Jain (1966)3 SCR 500; Oriental Insurance  Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel, 2006 (IV) CPJ 1. Relying on those judgements we can safely hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered

            that the case no. CC/383 of 2012 is dismissed on contest without cost.

            Supply certified copy to the parties free of cost.,