MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

          This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit – II, Kolkata in Complaint Case No. CC/482/2016 allowing the complaint on contest against the Appellants/O.Ps with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

          The Appellants/O.Ps were directed to refund jointly and severally an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with deduction of 10% thereof on non-standard basis against first policy premium amount within one month from the date of the order.

          As further directed, failure to comply with the above order, will entitle the Complainant to put the order into execution under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in that case, as directed, O.P. shall be liable to pay penal damage @ Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to the Ld. District Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree. 

          The brief facts of the case, having relevance with the instant complaint, were that the Respondent/Complainant, a widower having dual citizenship of India and Germany, constituted a charitable trust in memory of his beloved deceased wife for the causes of the poor people of this country.  The Complainant approached the Axis Bank, Golpark Branch in the vicinity of his Kolkata residence with a view to opening an account with the said bank to ensure safe keeping and safe transaction of the trust fund.  Mr. Ajit Pandey, claiming himself to be an employee of the said Bank, convinced him that for opening of the account he had to initiate an insurance policy.  The said Mr. Pandey made him adopt a policy of three years on an annual premium of Rs.3,50,000/- sponsored by the Appellant/O.P. Insurance Company assuring him a handsome return. 

          Since the Respondent/Complainant left India for Germany immediately after opening the policy, the Complainant had hardly any chance to examine the policy and take step in case of any disagreement with the terms and conditions laid down therein.  The Respondent/Complainant ultimately realized that he was mis-convinced with an exaggerated prospect of the policy when he, on coming back to his residence in India, perused the policy papers only to see that the same premium amount for 5 years was to be paid to receive an amount of Rs.17,23,000/- only.  The Respondent/Complainant visited the Axis Bank, Golpark Branch with the request for closure of the policy but the said Bank refused to take any action against his request as, what was told, it was no longer the agent of the Appellants/O.Ps.  The Appellants/O.Ps when contacted in their Gariahat Branch, also, as alleged, were proved to be equally evasive.  The Respondent/Complainant’s letter dated 15.02.2011 to the Head Office of the Appellants/O.Ps’ containing same request failed to yield him any desired result.  The Appellants/O.Ps, rather, asked him to pay the second premium to save the policy from being lapsed.

          The Respondent/Complainant being scared of the unfriendly approach of the Appellants/O.Ps and of their reluctance as well, to appreciate the fact that the Respondent/Complainant had signed the policy papers in good faith and he, because of his longer stay outside India, had least idea of the free look period, paid the second premium by cheque under compelling circumstances just 10 days before his further departure for Germany.  That cheque was dishonoured for one mistake being crept in it.  The Respondent/Complainant’s effort through his brother for sending the premium amount in the Bank’s account of Appellants/O.Ps’ from Germany was not matured because of Appellants/O.Ps’ unwillingness to provide his brother with the particulars of their Bank Account.

          The Respondent/Complainant, however, was assured by the Appellants/O.Ps of the fact that his policy would remain alive even if he paid the premium on his scheduled arrival in India in the month of October, 2011.  On his arrival, the Respondent/Complainant contacted the office of the Appellants/O.Ps at Gariahat Branch and paid the second premium in cheque which the Appellants/O.Ps kept in Suspense Account.

          The Respondent/Complainant, then on being asked by the Appellants/O.Ps had undergone the stressed ECG in spite of suffering from acute pain in the knee.  The report was allegedly satisfactory when the Respondent/Complainant was again asked to undergo Echocardiogram which the Respondent/Complainant denied to undergo.  There was exchange of letters between the Learned Advocates for the Respondent/Complainant and Appellants/O.Ps protecting the interest of their respective client.  The cheque of the like amount of the second instalment, however, was ultimately sent back to the Respondent/Complainant and no return of the first instalment was made.

          The Respondent/Complainant, finding no other alternative, filed the complaint case which the impugned judgment and order relates to.

          Heard both sides.  Considered the submissions of Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/O.Ps submitted that the Respondent/Complainant was an educated person and entered into the policy signing the policy papers out of own.  It was, as contended, difficult to believe that a person of education and position as the Respondent/Complainant was, would sign a paper without the contents of the same being verified. 

          As submitted, the policy papers were sent to the Respondent/Complainant on 07.04.2014 and the same was delivered on 19.04.2014 but, the Respondent/Complainant, in spite of having received the policy papers, did not care for availing himself of the free look period for closure or non-acceptance of the subject policy.

          As continued, the complaint, in view of the above, was liable to be rejected when the Ld. District Forum, without appreciating the merit of the case, passed the impugned judgment and order which needed to be set aside allowing the instant appeal.

          Ld. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, per contra, repeated the entire story to convince the Bench that the Appellants/O.Ps duped and cheated an aged widower whose intention was nothing else than to serve the causes of the poor people of this country. 

          The Appellants/O.Ps, as contended, procured the signature of the Respondent/Complainant on policy papers projecting an exaggerated prospect of the policy.  The policy which he adopted signing the related papers in good faith on an assurance of a handsome return of certain amount of investment ultimately proved to be uneconomical because of its delivering lesser return than even the invested amount.

          The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the Respondent/Complainant had no knowledge about the concept of “free look period”. As continued, the Appellants/O.Ps emphasised on medical examination of the Respondent/Complainant, after a lapse of more than one year giving requisition of medical reports one after another.  Refund of the second premium, keeping the same in suspense account for a considerable period of time on the pretext of non-availability of the medical report in terms of their second requisition after a lapse of more than one year does not tell very high of the delivery of services of the Appellants/O.Ps.  The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the appeal to be dismissed affirming the impugned judgment and order.

          Perused the papers on record.  Considered the submissions appearing on behalf of both sides.  It is a settled fact that the terms of an Agreement are binding upon the parties involved in it.  So, once the Agreement is signed, it is mandatory that the parties signing the agreement will abide by the terms and conditions of the Agreement.  The pleas of signing the Agreement in good faith without going through the policy terms and ignorance about the provisions of free look period, as resorted by the Respondent/Complainant, do not hold good here.

          We feel it difficult to buy the argument of the Appellants/O.Ps towards Respondent/Complainant’s inclination to adopt a policy which will fetch him a lesser amount of Rs.17,23,000/- than the amount of Rs.17,50,000/- invested in the form of annual premium @ Rs.3,50,000/- per year for five years.  We, although sense some sort of mis-briefing towards exaggerated prospect of the policy as alleged, are not inclined to draw any logical conclusion in favour of the Respondent/Complainant having good education who remains still at the receiving end because of not doing his duty of going through the policy papers in right earnest himself without depending on mere briefing by somebody else.

          The Respondent/Complainant, as we see, ultimately had issued the second premium withdrawing himself from his primary claim of refund of the premium amount paid first.  The second premium cheque was returned after keeping it in suspense account for a considerable period of time.  Presumably, the return of cheque corresponded to the denial of claim when the Respondent/Complainant had complied with pre-condition of getting him medically tested through stress ECG as per the demands of the Appellants/O.Ps in spite of the fact that he, at the relevant point of time, was suffering from acute pain in the knee. 

          The claim of Echocardiogram report from the Respondent/Complainant after a lapse of one year and that too after submission of report on stress ECG as per the claim of the Appellants/O.Ps was, however, remained uncontroverted.  We fail to understand what prompted the Appellants/O.Ps to ask for a report of Echocardiogram from the  Respondent/Complainant for the same purpose for the second time.  We are afraid, we may lead to the conclusion that the Appellants/O.Ps’ role only evolves an effort to find a plea enabling them to repudiate the claim of the Respondent/Complainant which they successfully did.

          Above being the circumstance, we are of the considered view that the Appellants/O.Ps had deficiency in rendering services to the Respondent/Complainant and the impugned judgment and order does not deserve any intervention from this Bench. 

          Hence, ordered that the appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The penal damage of Rs.5,000/- as directed to be paid to the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order till full and final settlement of the decree is waived.  The rest part of the impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.