Order No.  15  dt.  23/03/2017

          The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants were deceived by o.p. nos.2 and 3 acting as agents of o.p. no.1 and on discovery of such fact the complainant e-mailed to o.p. within 2 days from the receipt of the policy documents. The complainants subsequently while detected that e-mail has not reached the o.p. the complainants sent the e-mail again praying for refund of the policy premium amount. It was further stated that the complainants were made to understand that if the complainants pay the premiums of two years together in advance then they would have to pay a discounted amount of Rs.60,000/- instead of paying Rs.80,000/-. On the basis of the representations of o.p. no.2 the complainants issued a cheque of Rs.60,000/- and after receiving the policy the complainants became astonished wherefrom they came to learn that they will have to pay Rs.60,000/- towards yearly premium during the policy term for 18 years.

                Being a retired person the complainant no.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount and o.p. no.2 being an advocate having 5 years practicing experience has no capacity to pay the said yearly premium amount and as such informed to o.p. no.1 for cancellation of the policy. The o.p. no.1 did not accept the plea of the complainant with the flimsy ground that during the free look period of 15 days the complainants failed to exercise their option for cancellation of the said policy . on the basis of the said fact the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.60,000/- after cancelling the policy issued in favour of the complainant and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

                The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material of the complaint. It was stated that after receiving the intimation from the complainant for cancellation of the policy the o.p. made investigation with the branch and check the application form the documents submitted by complainant no.1. After making investigation it was brought to the notice of complainant no.1 that the policy features and benefits are mentioned in detail in the policy document sent to complainant noi.1 and it was further stated that in case of any discrepancy in the document and the plan offered to the insured the same should be brought to their notice within 15 days of receipt of the policy documents as per the free look provisions. The complainants failed to exercise their option within the stipulated period, therefore o.p. no.1 emphasized that the prayer for cancellation of the policy of the complainant no.1 cannot be accepted. It was stated further that the company did not receive any policy cancellation request from the complainants within the free look period which conclusively substantiates that the policy and its terms and conditions were to the complete satisfaction and agreement of the complainants. The o.p. no.1 denied that any free look cancellation request via e-mail was preferred by the complainant. Since the e-mail mentioned by the complainants was different from the e-mail of the company, therefore the e-mail never reached to o.p. and if the e-mail is sent to wrong or invalid I.D. the e-mail is returned to the sender as undelivered, with a notification showing the reasons why the e-mail was not delivered. The complainants waited for approximately one month to send a 2^nd policy cancellation request, after sending the e-mail dt.10.3.14, when they had realized that the e-mail has not been delivered to o.p. no.1 company and accordingly o.p. no.1 company cannot be liable for its lapse and carelessness on the part of the complainants. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. nos.2 and 3 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainants applied for obtaining policy of o.p. no.1.
2. Whether the complainants were deceived by an agent of the insurance company.
3. Whether the complainants exercised the option for cancellation of the policy within free look period.
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by o.p. no.1.
5. Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainants argued that the o.ps. unfairly and deceptively sold an insurance policy by false representation which document or policy the complainants never intended to avail. The o.p. nos.2 and 3 acting as agents of o.p. no.1 unfairly sold a policy floated by o.p. no.1. After discovery of such fact the complainants sent an e-mail expressing their intention to cancel the policy. On receiving the policy the complainants notices that as per the terms of the policy it as stated that the complainants will have to pay yearly premium of Rs.60,000/- for 18 years and complainant no.1 being a senior citizen has no such capacity to pay yearly premium of Rs.60,000/- for 18 years. Immediately after such detection of the policy conditions the complainant no.1 sent e-mail but o.p. no.1 did not act on the basis of the said e-mail and subsequently on the basis of another e-mail which was replied by o.p. no.1 stating inter alia that during the free look period the complainants failed to exercise their option for cancellation of the policy. Therefore the o.p. no.1 cannot act on the request of the complainants for cancellation of the policy. Since there was unfair trade practice adopted by o.p. no.1 in collusion with other o.ps. the complainants prayed for cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as compensation.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that o.p. no.1 do not have any relationship of principal and agent with o.p. nos.2 and 3 for sale of its policies and/or solicitation of any business for and on behalf of o.p. no.1 company and hence, o.p. no.1 cannot be held liable for any alleged wrongful acts of o.p. nos.2 and 3. It was further emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.p. that the complainants had the opportunity to cancel the policy during the free look period but during the said period the complainants failed to exercise their option. Therefore it cannot be said that o.p. no.1 did not act on the basis of the e-mail sent by the complainants within two days from the receipt of the policy. Since the e-mail address of the company was different from the e-mail I.D. whereby the complainants allegedly sent the e-mail the same never reached to the company and in case of non mentioning of the accurate e-mail I.D a notification would be sent to the sender mentioning the reason as to why the e-mail message was not delivered. Even after receiving the said message the complainants waited for a month to exercise their option for cancellation of the policy. In view of such ld. lawyer for o.p. argued that since the complainants failed to exercise their option for cancellation of the policy within free look period the o.p. no.1 cannot be held responsible for any fraud was practiced or there was any unfair trade practice by the o.p. no.1 since they acted as per the guideline of IRDA. Having regard to the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties coupled with the documents filed by both the parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants are educated person and they filled in the form by themselves. The complainant no.1 issued a cheque of Rs.60,000/-. After encashment of the cheque the policy was issued, the complainants received the said policy and it is also admitted fact from the evidence on record that after receiving the policy the complainants failed to exercise their option regarding cancellation of the policy and they did not avail of the free look period during which they could have applied to o.p. no.1 for cancellation of the policy. Though the complainant no.1 in the complaint stated that he sent the e-mail within two days from the date of receiving the policy but no such e-mail was received by o.p. no.1. The complainant no.1 sent the e-mail to wrong e-mail I.D. for which the company did not receive the same. In case of sending of message through e-mail on a wrong e-mail I.D. the same would be returned to the sender with a notification that e-mail I.D. was wrong. In spite of receiving such message the complainants waited for one month and as per the provision in accordance with the IRDA Regulations (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) the relevant portion says “A policy holder has a period of 15 days from the 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 the reasons for his objection, when he shall be entitled to a refund of the premium paid, subject only to deduction of proportionate risk premium for period on cover and the expenses incurred by the insurer on medical examination of the proposer and stamp duty charges”. From the materials on record it appears that the policy document was dispatched to the complainants on 7.3.14 and the same was delivered on 8.3.14 and the request for cancellation was made on 4.4.14 beyond the free look period on 22.3.14. In view of such materials on record we do not find any deceptive means practiced by the o.p. no.1 and/or there was any deficiency in service on the part of the said o.p., thereby we hold that the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.442/2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte against the other o.ps. without cost.         

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.