BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mandeep Singh Bains, aged about 32 years, son of Sh.Gurbax Singh, r/o H.No.206, Phase 6, Mohali.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

The Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, through Manager Servicing, Branch 2^nd Floor, SCO No.107-108, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

                                                ……Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                   PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL             MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh.Gurbax Singh Bains, Counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OP

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant purchased one Life Insurance Policy from the OP for Rs.1 lac at an annual premium of Rs.4320/-. He paid the premiums upto September, 2010.

               It is averred that that the OP had not supplied the policy document to the complainant. As such, he requested the OP through e-mail dated 20.5.2011 to supply him the policy document, which ultimately was supplied on 30.5.2011. It is also averred that as per the policy document, the complainant had the right to cancel the policy by giving notice in writing to the OP, within a period of 15 days of its receipt.  The complainant sent a written request to the OP on 1.6.2011 for cancellation of the policy and refund of the premium amount, which was declined on the ground that the request has been received beyond the prescribed period. Hence, this complaint.

2]           OP filed the reply, pleading therein that complainant availed the insurance policy in the year 2003 and paid 8 premium installments. It has been further pleaded that the complainant, for the first time after a period of 9 years of the issuance of the policy, raised the issuance of non-receipt of the policy document.  However, in response to his request, a duplicate policy was provided to him. It is submitted that the complainant availed the policy after duly being satisfied with its terms & conditions. It is also submitted that that the free look period was to be exercised within 15 days in the year 2003. As such, the request for cancellation of the policy was rightly declined vide letter dated 9.6.2011. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]           Admittedly, the policy in question was issued to the complainant in Sept., 2003 and he was its annual premium since 2003 till 2010. 

6]           The main contention of the complainant is that though he was paying regular premiums, but he did not receive the policy document. Therefore, he made a request to the OP on 20.5.2011 for supply of the policy document. It is argued that on perusal of the policy document, the complainant found it to be non-beneficial.  So, he availed the option of right to cancel the policy, as per policy document, and requested the OP to cancel his policy and refund of premium paid, but it was declined arbitrarily. 

7]           We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant. The complainant had been paying regular premiums since 2003 till 2010. In case, he had not received the policy document from OP Company in the year 2003, he should have taken up this matter with OP promptly and at least within a reasonable period.  But he did not do so.  Moreover, the issuance of duplicate policy document did not give him any right to avail free look period option, which was available to him only in the year 2003, when the original policy was issued.

8]           Furthermore, the perusal of proposal form reveals that the complainant is a Junior Engineer by profession and being an educated person, he is not supposed to sit over the matter for such a long period of 9 years. Therefore, the complainant is estopped by his own act & conduct and the present complaint is held to be baseless.

9]           In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complaint being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.