Order No.  19  dt.  20/09/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant took ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy being no.16383522 through o.p. no.2. The policy was for 15 years with 7 annual premium of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant on 10.2.12 paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh as a 1^st premium. The complainant was informed by the agent of o.p. that a welcome kit will arrive in the complainant’s parents house. The subsequently came to learn from the customer service agent in Mumbai that the complainant would get an assured sum of Rs.16 lakhs only for the complainant’s policy upon maturity. If the complainant decides to cancel the policy he will have to pay a minimum of 3 years premium and the complainant will be able to withdraw the said amount after 5 years from the issuance of the policy. On getting such information the complainant contacted their agent but they did not give any reply to the communication sent by the complainant’s mother. Thereafter through his advocate sent a letter to o.p. no.1 praying for cancellation of the said policy within 2 weeks. In response to the said letter a reply was made and whereby the complainant was asked to copy of the self attested photo and cancelled cheque within 15 days. The complainant’s mother provided those documents to o.p. no.2. In spite of receiving those documents o.ps. did not cancel the said insurance policy and wrongly withheld the same. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1 lakh as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. nos.2 and 5 stated that o.p. no.3 is a separate entity and they have been falsely impleaded in this case. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant being aware of the free look period which is not to raise any objection within the free look period and approached the o.p. no.1 instead of approaching the o.p. no.3 beyond such free look period in order to cancel the said policy. The complainant in order to adhere to the terms and conditions as laid down in the said policy. The o.p. no.3 as a good gesture has chosen to cancel the said policy. However, the complainant has failed to submit the requisite documents to enable the o.ps. to cancel the said policy. The o.ps. availed of two insurance policies one being the subject matter of the dispute in the instant complaint and 2^nd policy being in the name of his wife which also has been cancelled by o.ps. upon a request being made in relation thereto and requisite documents having been handed over to op.ps. as required. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.2 and 5 prayed for dismissal of the case against them.

            In their w/v o.p. nos.1, 3 and 4 stated that the policy documents were dispatched on 12.3.12 and the same was received by the complainant admittedly. Despite receipt of the policy and policy documents the complainant failed to approach the o.ps. within free look period making any grievance with respect to the policy or its terms and conditions. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given up / relinquished / waived his right by not submitting the documents for cancellations of the policy within the free look period in case if he was not agreeable to the policy terms and conditions.  The o.ps. after free look period as a gesture of goodwill accepted the free look cancellation of the request of the complainant requesting him to provide self attested photo ID and cancelled cheque in order to proceed with the cancellation request. The complainant failed to produce those documents for which the cancellation request could not be processed. Therefore there is no fault on the part of o.p. nos.1, 3 and 4 and on the basis of the said fact they prayed for dismissal of the case.   

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

1. Whether the complainant had the policy with o.p. no.3?
2. Whether the o.ps. provided the policy certificate and the complainant failed to approach the o.ps. for cancellation of the policy within the free look period?
3. Whether the o.p. no.3 agreed to cancel the police on production of documents?
4. Whether those documents were produced?
5. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
6. Whether the complainant 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 complainant argued that the complainant took ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy being no.16383522 through o.p. no.2. The policy was for 15 years with 7 annual premium of Rs.1 lakh. The complainant on 10.2.12 paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh as a 1^st premium. The complainant was informed by the agent of o.p. that a welcome kit will arrive in the complainant’s parents house. The subsequently came to learn from the customer service agent in Mumbai that the complainant would get an assured sum of Rs.16 lakhs only for the complainant’s policy upon maturity. If the complainant decides to cancel the policy he will have to pay a minimum of 3 years premium and the complainant will be able to withdraw the said amount after 5 years from the issuance of the policy. On getting such information the complainant contacted their agent but they did not give any reply to the communication sent by the complainant’s mother. Thereafter through his advocate sent a letter to o.p. no.1 praying for cancellation of the said policy within 2 weeks. In response to the said letter a reply was made and whereby the complainant was asked to copy of the self attested photo and cancelled cheque within 15 days. The complainant’s mother provided those documents to o.p. no.2. In spite of receiving those documents o.ps. did not cancel the said insurance policy and wrongly withheld the same. On the basis of the said fact the ld. lawyer for the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.1 lakh as well as other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.2 and 5 argued that  o.p. no.3 is a separate entity and they have been falsely impleaded in this case. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the complainant being aware of the free look period which is not to raise any objection within the free look period and approached the o.p. no.1 instead of approaching the o.p. no.3 beyond such free look period in order to cancel the said policy. The complainant in order to adhere to the terms and conditions as laid down in the said policy. The o.p. no.3 as a good gesture has chosen to cancel the said policy. However, the complainant has failed to submit the requisite documents to enable the o.ps. to cancel the said policy. The o.ps. availed of two insurance policies one being the subject matter of the dispute in the instant complaint and 2^nd policy being in the name of his wife which also has been cancelled by o.ps. upon a request being made in relation thereto and requisite documents having been handed over to op.ps. as required. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for o.p. nos.2 and 5 prayed for dismissal of the case against them.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1, 3 and 4 argued that the policy documents were dispatched on 12.3.12 and the same was received by the complainant admittedly. Despite receipt of the policy and policy documents the complainant failed to approach the o.ps. within free look period making any grievance with respect to the policy or its terms and conditions. The complainant is bound by the policy contract and given up / relinquished / waived his right by not submitting the documents for cancellations of the policy within the free look period in case if he was not agreeable to the policy terms and conditions.  The o.ps. after free look period as a gesture of goodwill accepted the free look cancellation of the request of the complainant requesting him to provide self attested photo ID and cancelled cheque in order to proceed with the cancellation request. The complainant failed to produce those documents for which the cancellation request could not be processed. Therefore there is no fault on the part of o.p. nos.1, 3 and 4 and on the basis of the said fact they prayed for dismissal of the case.  

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant applied for obtaining the policy to o.ps. and accordingly the policy was issued. Subsequently the complainant raised objection regarding the terms and conditions of the said policy for which the complainant raised his objection. The o.p. no.3 initiallym repudiated the claim of the complainant for cancellation of the policy, but subsequently as a good gesture the prayer of the complainant was accepted and the complainant was asked to produce some documents viz. photo ID and a cancelled cheque to process refund under the policy, but the complainant negligently failed to comply with the request of o.ps., therefore the policy could not be cancelled. The complainant was informed of the said fact before filing of the case against the o.p. no.3. In the letter itself o.p. no.3 dt.21.9.12 asked the complainant that the o.p. no.3 as  a special case accepted the request for cancellation of the policy and also requested to submit ta copy of self attested photo ID and a cancelled cheque, but it is curious enough that the complainant did not provide those documents and only claimed that the documents were provided to o.p. no.2. It is relevant to mention here that o.p. nosa.2 and 3 are separate entity and therefore the said fact was informed to the complainant and also to his representative, but instead of complying the said request the complainant filed this case with an eye to get an illegal gain from o.ps. Therefore we hold that we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps., particularly o.p. no.3 and the complainant is directed to produce the documents for receiving the payment after cancellation of the policy since the case made out by the complainant has got no substance, therefore we hold that the complainant 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.151/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

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