Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.2.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only)vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant opted to take two policies as âSingle Paid Premium Policyâ, one in the name of his grand-daughter Ameek Kaur and another in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur and, as such, paid Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) as premium. However, he did not receive the Policy documents till 18.11.2009, so he visited the Opposite Parties and requested them to issue Original Policies, whereupon, they issued him the duplicate Policies on 27.11.2009 mentioning therein the minimum surrender period as five years instead of one year. It was stated that he requested the Opposite Parties to cancel one Policy bearing No. 5003565735 issued in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur and return of Rs. 40,000 paid as premium, which they declined. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the âActâ only), was filed.
3. In their written reply, the Opposite Parties admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the complainant signed the proposal form, after understanding the terms and conditions and implication of the policy. It was further stated that the complainant made a declaration of having understood the product brochure and the terms of the contract of insurance. It was further stated that as per the records of the Opposite Parties, the Policy document along with a copy of the proposal form was duly delivered on 14.5.2009,vide Blue Dart AWB No. 44295270515 at the address mentioned, in the proposal form, and the same was duly received by him, as it was never returned to them as undelivered. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties for duplicate bond on 19.11.2009 and the indemnity bond was submitted by him. Accordingly, the duplicate policy bond was also sent to him on 24.11.2009. It was further stated that the complainant wrote a letter for cancellation of the policy on 23.12.2009, which was duly replied on 18.1.2010vide Annexure R-5 that since the free look period had lapsed, so, the cancellation of the said policy was not possible, as per the terms of the same. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully.
8. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the complainant opted to take two Insurance Policies as Single Paid Premium Policies, one in the name of his grand daughter and another in the name of his daughter for which he had paid Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) through cheques and the same were encashed on 6.5.2009 and 9.5.2009 respectively, but he did not receive the Policy documents till 18.11.2009. He further submitted that the complainant met Mr. Pandey of the Opposite Parties who advised him to apply for issuance of the original/duplicate policy papers for which an indemnity bond was furnished on 19.11.2009 and only thereafter he received two duplicate policies, mentioning therein, the minimum period to be of five years instead of one year. He further submitted that the complainant visited the Opposite Parties on 28.11.2009 and 1.12.2009 and approached Mr. Abhishek Chugh, their Area Sales Manager for cancellation of the policies as due to financial constraints, he was not in a position to pay the premiums for five years but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant opted to retain one policy of his grand-daughter namely Ms. Ameek Kaur and requested for cancellation of another policy of his daughter to which Mr. Chugh had agreed and advised him to wait for a few days (Annexure P-2) but the Opposite Parties neither refunded the amount of Rs. 40,000 nor cancelled the Policy of his daughter nor they bothered to reply to his request letter for cancellation of the Policy. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
9. The Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant signed the proposal form (Annexure R-l) and the illustration of benefits (Annexures R-2) for obtaining the Policies, in question. It was further submitted that the Policies were duly delivered to the complainant on 14.5.2009vide Blue Dart AWB No. 44295270515 at the address mentioned, in the proposal form, as the same were never returned as undelivered. It was further submitted that the duplicate policies were sent to the complainant on 24.11.2009 and, as such, he was well aware of the terms and conditions of the Policies, and he could not be allowed to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies. He further submitted that the complainant failed to exercise the option for cancellation of the Policies, in question, during the free look period and, as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld.
10. From the proposal form (Annexure R-1) and Illustration Benefits Form (Annexure R-2), which were duly signed by the complainant, it is established that the complainant purchased the Policies, in question, from the opposite parties but there is no denying the fact that on 14.5.2009, he did not receive the same, as the Opposite Parties failed to produce any receipt or document, on record, regarding the delivery of the same to the complainant. So, in the absence of any tangible evidence, having been produced by the Opposite Parties that the Policies were delivered to the complainant, we are left with no option but to believe the version of the complainant that he received the said Policies on 27.11.2009. As per Clause 2.9 of the Policy bond, R-4, if the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the Policies, issued to him, he should have returned the original Policy Bond along with the letter stating the reasons for the same, within 15 days from the receipt of the same (âthe Free Look Periodâ), for cancellation of the same but he failed to place on record any tangible evidence, that he ever requested the opposite parties, for cancellation of the same during the free look period of 15 days. Concededly, the complainant for the first time requested, for cancellation of policies, on 23.12.2009, to which the Opposite Parties replied on 18.1.2010vide Annexure R-5, stating therein that the complainant had an option to return the Policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. It was further stated in this letter, that his request could not be processed as 15 days period had already lapsed. In this view of the matter, the complainant, who himself failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Policy, could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the considered view, that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
11. The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room after completion.
Appeal dismissed.