Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he has taken life insurance policy from the O.P. for his wife Divyaprabha in August-2008.  The O.P. insisted the complainant to take another policy in his name in attractive scheme i.e. for on time premium of Rs.3 Lakhs covering risk for Rs.30 Lakhs for the whole life.  The complainant agreed and issued two cheques which were duly honoured on 23^rd September, 2008.  The complainant got copy of his policy No.01334088 on 9^th October, 2008 but did not receive the policy of his wife.  The policy was not as per agreed conditions therefore he called the opponents to rectify the mistake. The complainant called upon the opponents that he is not interested in both the policies if the policy of his wife is not issued.  There was correspondence via email between the complainant and the opponents.  The opponents assured that policy of complainant’s wife would soon be received by him.  Vide letter dated 1^st December, 2008, the opponents rejected the policy of his wife.  The opponents vide notice dated 31^st August, 2009 demanded another premium of Rs.3,00,313/- and threatened to lapse the policy if the amount is not paid by 31^st March, 2010.  The opponents telephonically informed the complainant to pay minimum three premiums to keep policy active for whole life.  The complainant under threat and pressure paid Rs.10,000/- as a second premium on 1^st October, 2009 and Rs.10,000/- on 5^th October, 2010 as a third premium to avoid the lapse of policy.  The opponents had taken blank signature on form and filled the forms themselves.  The complainant had several correspondence with the opponents making his grievances but his grievances were not solved.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponents to pay Rs.3,20,000/- with interest from 23^rd September, 2008 or to bring the policy to the original status i.e. single premium with risk cover.  He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. 

2)                The opponents appeared and filed written statement.  According to the opponents the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service.  It is also barred by limitation.  The policy was taken for the commercial purpose therefore the complainant is not the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant executed proposal form and signed it in which yearly premium of Rs.3,00,313/- is mentioned.  The schedule of premium is given on printed form.  There was free look period for fifteen days.  The complainant did not avail free look period therefore the complainant is bound by all the terms and conditions. There was no pre condition to issue the policy in the name of his wife. On the request of the complainant, premium was reduced from Rs.3 Lakhs to Rs.10,000/- The complainant was unable to pay premium of Rs.3 Lakhs per annum therefore he has filed this false complaint

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2  :- According to the complainant, policy was of single premium covering risk of Rs.30 Lakhs.  In para 9 of the affidavit of evidence, the complainant has admitted that he received his policy on 9^th October, 2008. The copy of policy is on record.  In the policy, free look period for fifteen days was given.  If the complainant was not agreed with the policy, he had choice to cancel it.  The complainant did not cancel the policy within free look period.  Therefore, the policy is binding on the complainant.  It is submitted by the complainant that in his email dated 22^nd October, 2008, he has expressed his intention to cancel both the policies.  According to the complainant policy in the name of his wife was the pre condition for the policy in his name.  There is no evidence on record to corroborate the submission of the complainant.  The correspondence between the parties do not disclose that policy in the name of wife was the pre condition or he has cancel the policy within free look period.  On perusal of email dated 22^nd and 23^rd October, 2008, it do not disclose that policy in the name of wife was pre condition and as the policy was not issued in the name of his wife he is cancelling the policy in his name.  The complainant has referred some telephonic talk in his email but he has not disclosed what was the telephonic talk.  One can not infer from these email letters that policy in the name of wife was pre condition and as the policy was not issued in the name of wife he is cancelling the policy in his name.  The contents of email correspondence are vague.  In the affidavit dated 2^nd April, 2012, para 6, the complainant has categorically stated that he has taken many policies from the opponents.  It shows that the complainant is not the layman and he is aware about the modus operandi of the opponents.

5)                Admittedly, the complainant received the policy in his name on 9^th October, 2008.  He has not exercised his option within free look period.  The complaint is also filed after three years. Moreover, the complainant requested the opponents to reduce the premium from Rs.3 Lakhs to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the opponents reduced the premium to Rs.10,000/-. The complainant paid two premiums thereafter.  Therefore, at this stage the grievance of the complainant can not be accepted.  According to the complainant proposal form was not filled up by him.  It was filled up by the person of the opponents.  As stated above, the complainant got many policies from the opponents.  Therefore he is aware about the procedure of the opponents.  The proposal form is signed by him.  The complainant has not exercised his right within free look period.  According to the complainant, the policy was for one time premium but the opponents wrongly issued letter demanding further premium.  Admittedly, the complainant received the policy on 9^th October, 2008.  He has produced the copy of policy.  It shows that next premium due was on 30^th September, 2009.  Thus, the policy disclosed that it was not for one time premium.  It was for annual premium of Rs.3 Lakhs.  Therefore, the submission of the complainant about the one time premium can not be accepted. 

6)                Considering the above discussion, we came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the complaint of the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief as claimed and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly. 

Pronounced

Dated 25^th March, 2014