Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

        Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986, challenges the Judgment and order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum North 24 parganas in Complaint Case No. CC/275/2015 dismissing the complaint on contest without costs.

        The fact of the case was that the Appellant/Complainant purchased one policy from the Respondent/OP Insurance Company being misconvinced about the prospect of the said policy by the agent of the Respondents/OPs. The said agent—unnamed and not made a party to the complaint—allegedly, sold the policy to the Appellant/Complainant assuring, in an exaggerated presentation, the value of the policy on maturity to be equal to Rs. 10,78,300/-, being the sum assured of the same, on an onetime payment of policy premium for an amount of Rs. 60,000/-.

        Some days after, the insured Appellant/Complainant received the policy papers and got the policy conditions interpreted by his well wishers because of his being not acquainted with the English language. He came to know that the policy conditions narrated therein were different form that told to him at the time of selling the policy. The guidelines of the issued policy narrated that the insured would be entitled to a matured value of 10,78,300/- after 24 years since the date of initiation of the policy on payment of 14 instalments of annual premium, each of Rs. 60,000/-. The policy being viewed an unacceptable one, he approached the Respondent/OP authorities making personal contact with them and also through the issuing of legal notices remanding cancellation of the policy and refund of Rs. 60,000/-, his hard earned money, which he paid as onetime policy premium. His prayer was not heeded to by the Respondents/OPs who, in his communication as reply to the legal notice, refused to close the policy. There was, therefore, no refund of any amount as demanded by the Appellant/Complainant.

        The aggrieved Appellant/Complainant then filed the Complainant Case with the claim for the refund of his invested amount with cost and compensation. The impugned and order which is under challenge in the instant Appeal arose from the said Complainant Case.

        Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides and considered their submissions defending the interest of their respective client.

        Perused the papers on record. We are aware that the Insurance policy is basically an agreement between the insurer and insured, the terms and conditions of which are binding upon the said parties.

        We, in this context, place our reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in [Bharathi Knitting Company—Vs—DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.] reported in (1996) 4 SCC 794 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a person signing the document containing contractual terms was normally bound by them even though he had not read them and even though he was ignorant of their precise legal effect. On the same context, we further refer to the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Consumer Case No. 64 of 2006 [A.V. Cottex Limited—Vs—The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] reported in 2017 (2) CPR 696 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observe that Insurance policy is a contract between insured and insurer and its terms and conditions are to be considered as such in same spirit in which they are written and agreed upon by parties.

        The record revealed that the Policy No. 0314804630 dated 17.04.2014 was issued in the name of the Appellant/Complainant. Admittedly, the Appellant/Complainant received the policy paper after a few days. The first communication, admittedly, was made on 09.01.2015, that is, on expiry of almost 8 months since the date of issuance of the policy. It meant that the benefit of the free look period was willingly not accepted by the Appellant/Complainant.

        The Bench, in the given circumstances, viewed that the Ld. District Forum had sufficient justification in passing the impugned judgment and order and felt that the impugned judgment and order did not deserve any intervention from this end.

        Hence,

Ordered

            that the Appeal be and the same is dismissed on context without cost. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.