Order No. 20 dt. 20/02/2020
The case of the complainant in brief is that in the month of March, 2017 two representatives of o.p. insurance company visited the house of the complainant and requested the complainant to avail a suitable policy considering the age of financial capability of the complainant. Due to the age factor the complainant the representatives persuaded the complainant to come under a policy where the complainant will be the policy holder and his son being Atindra Nath Mukherjee will be the proposed insured person. On repeated persuasion the complainant agreed to have a single premium policy at 8.25% interest for a term of 3 years and accordingly, the complainant paid onetime premium amounting to Rs.95,000/- by cheque in favour of o.ps. The complainant was very much busy with illness of his wife and was not in a position to scrutinize the policy document. After some months the complainant became shocked on going through the policy document instead of single premium paying policy, the policy document stated about the policy term for 15 years and premium payment term for 15 years and such policy was not opted by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant requested the o.ps. for cancellation of the policy and to refund the amount paid by him, but o.ps. did not pay any heed, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs.95,000/- holding the policy is to be cancelled as well as compensation and litigation cost.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that after delivery of the policy the complainant was duly informed that in case he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy he can pray for cancellation of the policy under the free look period provision within 15 days from the date of receipt o the policy document. The complainant did not avail the said period for cancellation of the policy. Since the complainant made allegations of fraud and misspelling, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such case, only remedy lies to the complainant by filing a suit before a competent Civil Court. The complainant has not made the agents of o.ps. as parties to this case, as such, the case is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The insurance company was in receipt of a duly signed and filled up proposal form from the complainant for issuance of an insurance policy. The complainant mentioned therein that he is a graduate and worked as Professor in Techno India College, therefore, the complainant was comfortably placed to read and understand the contents of the proposal form, consequence to which, the complainant had submitted a declaration in the proposal form wherein it was categorically mentioned that he understood all terms and conditions in relation to the product purpose to be purchased by him. Since the complainant made false allegations against the o.ps., thereby o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant obtained the policy for a term of 3 years with the onetime premium paid?
- Whether the complainant was provided with a policy which was not agreed by the complainant?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- 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 in the month of March, 2017 two representatives of o.p. insurance company visited the house of the complainant and requested the complainant to avail a suitable policy considering the age of financial capability of the complainant. Due to the age factor the complainant the representatives persuaded the complainant to come under a policy where the complainant will be the policy holder and his son being Atindra Nath Mukherjee will be the proposed insured person. On repeated persuasion the complainant agreed to have a single premium policy at 8.25% interest for a term of 3 years and accordingly, the complainant paid onetime premium amounting to Rs.95,000/- by cheque in favour of o.ps. The complainant was very much busy with illness of his wife and was not in a position to scrutinize the policy document. After some months the complainant became shocked on going through the policy document instead of single premium paying policy, the policy document stated about the policy term for 15 years and premium payment term for 15 years and such policy was not opted by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant requested the o.ps. for cancellation of the policy and to refund the amount paid by him, but o.ps. did not pay any heed, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund the amount of Rs.95,000/- holding the policy is to be cancelled as well as compensation and litigation cost.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that after delivery of the policy the complainant was duly informed that in case he is not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy he can pray for cancellation of the policy under the free look period provision within 15 days from the date of receipt o the policy document. The complainant did not avail the said period for cancellation of the policy. Since the complainant made allegations of fraud and misspelling, hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such case, only remedy lies to the complainant by filing a suit before a competent Civil Court. The complainant has not made the agents of o.ps. as parties to this case, as such, the case is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The insurance company was in receipt of a duly signed and filled up proposal form from the complainant for issuance of an insurance policy. The complainant mentioned therein that he is a graduate and worked as Professor in Techno India College, therefore, the complainant was comfortably placed to read and understand the contents of the proposal form, consequence to which, the complainant had submitted a declaration in the proposal form wherein it was categorically mentioned that he understood all terms and conditions in relation to the product purpose to be purchased by him. Since the complainant made false allegations against the o.ps., thereby o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the policy issued by o.ps. The complainant is a senior citizen aged about 75 years and the representatives of o.ps. convinced the complainant to purchase the said policy by paying onetime premium, but whenever the complainant after the expiry of the free look period went through the contents of the policy document came to learn that he will have to pay premium for Rs.95,000/- for a term of 15 years. The complainant after coming to know of the said terms and conditions of the policy became astonished and he contacted the o.ps. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant lodged a complaint to o.ps. praying for cancellation of the policy. The o.ps. did not allow the prayer of the complainant since the complainant failed to pray for cancellation of the policy within the free look period. It is true that the complainant ought to have prayed for cancellation of the policy within the free look period, but being a senior citizen aged about 75 years it was not possible for him to go through the policy document within the short period of time since he was busy with the treatment of his wife who was undergoing treatment at the relevant point of time. After her recovery the complainant read the contents of the policy and he became astonished. He contacted the o.ps. and some months were delayed for which he could not avail the free look period for cancellation of the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy document. The policy which was provided to the complainant had the condition that the complainant would have to pay Rs.95,000/- per annum towards the premium and the same is to be continued for 15 years. The person who was at the relevant point of time aged about 75 years it is not believable that he will opt for further period of 15 years by paying premium for the said period @ Rs.95,000/- per annum. It is quite discernable that some mistake was committed by the agents of o.ps. for misselling the said policy and somehow the signature of the complainant was obtained, but the form for obtaining the policy was filled up by the agent of the o.ps. Since the facts and circumstances of the case clearly established the fact that there is misselling of the policy, therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. and the complainant will be entitled to get refund of the amount paid by him towards the policy along with compensation and litigation cost. Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.235/2018 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. The o.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety fife thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
