Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been dismissed by the Ld. District Forum, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is preferred by the Complainant, Ms. Sikha Chowdhury.

The complaint case, in short, is that although it was stated to her by the representatives of the OPs that she would be issued single premium policies, on receipt of policy documents, she discovered that the same were regular policies requiring her to pay considerable sum of money as premium every year which she could ill afford.  Accordingly, she lodged complaint with the OPs asking them to return the deposited sum.  The amount being not refunded, feeling aggrieved, she filed the complaint case.

OP Nos. 1&2, on the other hand, submitted that the subject policies were issued in the year 2011; whereas, she approached the OPs in the year 2016 for cancellation of the subject policy.  Therefore, such prayer was not acceded to.

Decision with reasons

Both sides were heard through their respective Ld. Advocates and documents on record gone through carefully.

Undisputed fact of this case is that the Appellant applied for cancellation of the subject policies long after expiry of the free-look period.  It is not understood, while admittedly, on receipt of policy bonds, she discovered the alleged anomaly, why she did not lodge written complaint with the Respondents at once.  Clearly, the Appellant herself was at fault.  Accordingly, in my considered opinion, she cannot blame the other side in the matter. 

Each company is guided by its distinct Rules and Regulations being framed by the top echelon of the Management.  Simply because another Insurance Company responded positively to her prayer and refunded the premium amount, it was futile on her part to expect similar gesture from the Respondents.  Terms and conditions of the insurance policy being a contract, the same is binding upon both sides.  In fact the IRDA itself directed Insurance Companies to accord 15 days time to customers to cancel a policy from the date of receipt of the same in case of any dissatisfaction with the same; it is not something which has been arbitrarily set out by the Respondents.  Accordingly, it was highly improper to blame the Respondents for providing only a fortnight time for the purpose of cancelling the subject policies.

No satisfactory explanation is given from the side of the Appellant regarding non-submission of cancellation request within the free-look period when admittedly the Appellant detected the alleged anomaly in respect of the subject policies on receipt of the policy documents. 

It is always advisable that one should cut one’s cloth to suit the purse.  Unfortunately, it appears that the Appellant indiscriminately purchased several policies from different companies.  However, when she found the going tough, she claimed refund of premium amount from the Insurance Companies alleging mis-selling of policies.  In absence of any conclusive evidence to suggest that the Appellant indeed fall victim of the sinister design of agent of the Respondents, the Appellant, in my considered opinion, deserves no  favourable consideration. 

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondents.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.