Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
The complaint case since been allowed by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Future Generali India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
One Sri Amal Jana filed a complaint case alleging that the authorized agent of the OP Insurance Company, sold him a policy through utter misrepresentation. As soon as detected such anomaly, he got in touch with the said agent, who assured him to do the needful, but in vain. As nothing was done even after passage of considerable period of time, the Complainant lodged written complaint with the OP Insurance Company. However, such prayer was turned down citing expiry of free-look period. Feeling dejected, the Complainant lodged the complaint case.
OP Nos. 1&2, on the other hand, submitted that on receipt of duly filled up proposal form, the instant policy was issued in favour of the Complainant. The policy contained due provision for cancellation of the same subject to receipt of necessary cancellation request within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the same by the policyholder. As the Complainant did not lodge necessary complaint within the threshold time limit, his prayer could not be favourably considered.
Decision with reasons
Initially the Respondent appeared through his Ld. Advocate. Subsequently, however, no one turned up to represent him. Therefore, the Appeal was heard ex parte.
It appears from the photocopy of subject proposal form that annual income of the Respondent was shown as Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, no income proof document was obtained from him. It also transpires from the said form that the Respondent earns his livelihood by running a garment shop. It is also noticed that the proposal form was not filled up by the policyholder himself, but by someone else. Therefore, the possibility of putting an imaginary figure in respect of the income of the proposer/Respondent in order to establish his capability to pay whooping annual premium of Rs. 24,000/- cannot be completely ruled out. Such a possibility stirred our consciousness taking into consideration the fact that cancellation request was made within 3 months of receipt of the policy, that too on account of financial handicapness of the policyholder.
The Respondent stated in his petition of complaint that initially he ventilated his grievance to the agent of the Appellant. However, as they did nothing, he was compelled to formally approach the Appellants; meanwhile, the free-look period got over.
It is a fact that the cancellation request was not made within the free-look period, as was required of him in terms of the subject policy. However, in view of above emerging factors, we are unable to disregard the allegation of the Respondent as a mere afterthought. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the instant case was rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to exonerate the Appellants from the liability of paying any penal damage as ordered by the Forum below.
The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent in part. The Appellants need not pay any penal damage. Otherwise, the impugned order shall remain unaltered.
