Order No.  20  dt.  13/07/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant issued 3 nos. of cheques of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- in a single annuity bond by onetime payment of premium of Rs.3 lakhs. It was stated that o.p. no.4 obtained the signature of the complainant on a blank paper and assured the complainant that they will fill up the proposal form as per the norms of the bond application. Subsequently after the lapse of sometime the complainant received three regular insurance policies instead of one annuity bond in the 1^st week of April, 2011. After perusal of the said documents the complainant found that he will have to pay further amount to continue the policies by investing Rs.3 lakhs per year. On the basis of the said fact the complainant requested the o.ps. to cancel the policies but no such step was taken by o.ps. for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the amount of Rs.3 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum and compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/vs and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 to 3 stated that the investment in annuity bond has great future with remarkable return and the said bond is very popular in the market and it was specifically denied that the said bond is a onetime payment of premium bond. The complainant took insurance coverage for SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the complainant is duty bound to keep the policies in force by making regular payment of premium. The insurance company issued 3 policies based on the proposal form executed by the complainant. The complainant never made any complaint to the insurance company during the free look period of 15 days for cancellation of the policies as per IRDA rules. It was stated that the terms and conditions contained in the policies in the contract between the insurer and insured and is binding on the parties. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that he had applied for annuity bond. On the basis of the said fact o.p. nos.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            In their w/v o.p. no.4 stated that the complainant approached o.p. no.4 for purchasing several policies of o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.4 has shown him several policies of various manufacturer including o.p. no.1. The complainant was fully aware of the facts and figures of the policies and being well informed about the free look period. The o.p. no.4 has been falsely made a party in this case and he had no role to play in the allegation labeled by the complainant against him. In view of the said fact o.p. no.4 also 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 invested the amount for obtaining the policies?
2. Whether the complainant had the idea of payment of the said amount for purchasing one time policy?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. 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 with an idea to invest the amount in annuity bond paid the said amount by issuing three cheques and he had the idea that he invested the said amount in a single annuity bond by onetime payment of premium of Rs.3 lakhs. After getting the documents he became astonished and found that he will have to invest an amount of Rs.3 lakhs per year and the complainant had no such means to continue those policies by investing an amount of Rs.3 lakhs in each year. On the basis of the said fact the complainant approached the o.p. nos.1 to 3 for cancellation of those policies and refund of the amount, but his request was turned down for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for refund of the said amount of rs.3 lakhs along with other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 to 3 argued that the complainant being an educated person and filled up the policy forms and he was fully aware regarding the terms and conditions of those policies. The complainant after the lapse of several months particularly after the free look period approached the o.p. nos.1 to 3 and subsequently sent a letter praying for cancellation of those policies and refund of the amount. Since the policies were issued in accordance with the proposal forms and submitted by the complainant and he did not avail of the free look period of 15 days as per the policy conditions, therefore the policies could not cancelled and the request of the complainant could not be adhered to. The complainant in order to make out a case made false allegation against the o.ps. In view of the said fact o.p. nos.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is an educated person and he filled in the proposal form and he also provided the necessary documents including his personal data at the time of filling those forms. The complainant is an educated person and he was fully aware regarding the terms and conditions of those policies. Nowhere in the policy application it was mentioned that the amount was received by o.ps. towards the investment of annuity bond and the payment was for one time. The complainant after receiving the policies did not exercise the option within 15 days i.e. free look period praying for cancellation of those policies. After the lapse of several months the complainant made contact with o.ps. and subsequently sent a letter intimating the o.ps. for cancellation of those policies. Since the o.ps. acted as per the IRDA guideline and expressed their inability to accept the plea of the complainant for cancellation of those policies, those policies could not be cancelled and the amount could not be refunded to the complainant. On perusal of the materials on record as well as evidence adduced by the parties we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. for which o.ps. can be given direction for refund of the said amount as paid by the complainant. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.592/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

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