In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4^th Floor, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.362/2011.

1)                   Sri Laxmi Prasad,

            2/7, Bhujanga Dhar Road, Liluah, Hooghly-711024.                                              ---------- Complainant

---Versus---                          

1)                   The Manager,

            Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

            2^nd Floor, Ashoka Apartment,

            115/6, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-4.

2)                   The Manager,

            Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

            5^th Floor, Chowringee Court,

            55, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-71.

3)         The Manager,

            Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

             Delphi – B Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue, 

Hiranandani BusinessPark, Powai, Mumbai-400076.                               ---------- Opposite Partis

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

Order No.   18    Dated  16-09-2013.

          The case of the complainant in short is that o.p. no.1 is the insurance provider who issued the policy in favour of the complainant and o.p. no.2 is the local head office of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.3 is the corporate office of o.p. no.1 and carrying on business at the address as mentioned in the cause title of the complaint petition.

            One Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta the agent of o.ps. bearing agent code -1150662 along with Sri Sanjay Shaw the agent leader of Khushi Associates bearing leader code 001097576 approached the complainant to get a policy namely Invest Assure Flexi.

            The agents convinced the complainant by saying that only by paying one time premium he shall obtain the said policy. It may be mentioned that at the time of issuing of the said policy the age of the complainant was 67 years. 

            Complainant thereafter issued a cheque bearing no.212850 dt.15.3.08 of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Bank of India towards the payment of premium. The agents provided a blank application form which the complainant signed on trust and handed over the application form along with the cheque of Rs.50,000/- to them.

             On receipt of the policy certificate the complainant was shocked and surprised to notice that he had to pay premium for 13 years more which was just the reverse from the statements of the agents of the o.ps.

            Complainant received the said policy certificate on 11.5.08. Without spending any time the complainant sent a letter dt.12.5.08 to the o.ps. asking for cancellation of the said policy within the ‘Free Look Period’.

            All on a sudden, in the month of June 2011 the complainant received a cheque being no.356465 dt.5.3.11 for Rs.16,215.73 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. along with a forwarding letter dt.20.5.11 from the o.p. and was surprised to note that after deducting some necessary charges against his premium the above policy was cancelled, but it may be specifically mentioned that the complainant did not encash the cheque till date.

            On receipt of the letter and cheque from the o.ps. the complainant sent a notice through his lawyer on 1.10.11 thereby requesting the o.ps. to refund the entire premium amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.  Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:--

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the cheque of Rs.16,000/- is lying with the complainant and complainant paid only one premium and as such, complainant is not entitled to policy benefit. It is to be noted here that complainant has failed to show that complainant had sent prayer for discontinuance of policy within pre-look period. Further we find that the cause of action arose in the year May 2008 and the case was filed on 15.11.11 well after two years beyond the period of limitation.

            In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that complainant has failed to prove his case and he is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.