DATE OF FILING : 23.08.2016.
DATE OF S/R : 25.11.2016.
DATE OF ORDER : 28.12.2017.
Sri Saikat Mitra,
son of Sri Sunil Mitra,
of Block L/3, B. Garden Lane, Govt. Quarter, IHE,
P.S. A.J.C. Bose B. Garden,
District Howrah,
PIN 711103. .………………….………………………….……..…… COMPLAINANT.
Reliance Life Insurance,
represented by the Manager,
having its registered office at Himalaya House
at 4th floor, 38B, Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata 700071. ……………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Abdul Kuddus.
Hon’ble Member : Shri Sajal Kanti Jana.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Banani Mohanta ( Ganguli ).
F I N A L O R D E R
Facts of the case of the complainant, in short, is that complainant purchased three policies having contract no. 51778996, date of commencement of policy 19.08.2014, term of policy 15 years with annual premium of Rs. 74,256/-, another policy having contract no. 51803693, policy term 15 years, date of commencement 23.09.2014 with annual premium of Rs. 19,800/- and another policy having contract no. 51784706, date of commencement 26.08.2014, policy term 15 years with annual premium of Rs. 59,760/- in total Rs. 1,75,000/- from o.p. / insurance company and this complainant has paid total premiums vide demand draft dated 19.8.2014 amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- for three policies. Thereafter this complainant decided not to proceed with these policies. Further he submitted application to cancel his said three policies within the free look period. But this o.p. insurance company has not paid back the said premiums in respect of the said three policies amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- to this complainant.
So this complainant has filed this complaint and prayed for refund of Rs. 1,75,000/- along with 12% interest and also made further prayer of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for unfair trade practice and Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service and Rs. 1 lakhs as physical harassment and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
This case is being contested by the o.p. by filing written version denying all allegations as made in this petition contending interalia that the case is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action. The specific case of the o.p. is that as per Clause 9 of the terms and conditions of the policy that in the event of complainant disagrees with any terms and conditions of the policy he may cancel the policy by returning the policy documents in the company within 15 days then the O.P., insurance company, will return the premium paid by the policy holder less deduction of proportionate risk premium for the time. So this complainant has failed to make out his case primafacie against the respondent. So this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
i) Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
ii) Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the o.ps ?
iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Ld. advocate for the complainant argued interalia that he purchased three insurance policies from the o.p. insurance company as such he paid total premium of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the o.p. insurer respect of his three policies. But this complainant decided to cancel the said policies and so he submitted application to the o.p. company within the free look period. Despite that o.p. has not paid back the said amount. So this complainant being the consumer of respondent/ o.p. insurance company has filed this case and pray for refund of policy premium amount and other reliefs.
On the other hand ld. advocate for the o.p. argued interalia that theo.p. intends to refund the premium paid by the complainant less deduction of proportionate risk premium for the time and subject to deposit of policies in original to the o.p. insurance company. But original policies have not been submitted before this company by the complainant. So he prays for dismissal of his case.
Heard both sides. Perused the BNA and the petition of complaint and written version and the xerox copies of documents and the materials on record.
It appears that it is undisputed that the complainant purchased three policies from o.p., Reliance Life Insurance, for a term of 15 years. It is also undisputed that this complainant has paid total premium amounting toRs. 1,75,000/- in respect of said three policies. It also reveals from the written version submitted by the o.p. in para 6 where it has been stated that in the event of disagreement with any terms and conditions of the policy any policy holder may cancel the said policy by submitting his policy documents to the company within 15 days of receiving it, subject to stating policies objection. It has also been stated in the written version that company will refund the premium paid by the complainant. It is not undisputed that this complainant conveyed factum of cancellation of insurance policy within the look period to the o.p. company. So we hold that one policy holder may cancel his policy within 15 days of free look period from the date of purchase of policy.
It also reveals from the contents of BNA and written version and from the argument made by the ld. advocate for the o.p. that they could not be able to pay the premium back to the complainant for non submission of policy in original. Ld. advocate for the o.p. intends to submit that there is some breach of condition of policy in the matter of filing of policy in original. But ld. advocate for the complainant submits that the said original policy documents three in numbers are with him and he is ready to produce the same before the o.p.
It has been observed by the Hon’ble Commission reported in 2017(3) page 480 NC that a claim cannot be rejected in interior even if there some breach of policy condition.
In view of above observation of the Hon’ble National Commission we find that the claim of the complainant in the matter of refund of annual premium in respect of case policies should not be denied for non production of policy in original to the o.p. We also hold that o.p. no. 1, insurer is willing to refund of premium paid by complainant on condition that policy in original to be submitted to o.p. / insurer.
In view of above facts and circumstances and discussion made above we find that complainant is entitled to refund of the premiums to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- in respect of three policies purchased by him from the o.p./ insurer.
We do not like to award any amount with interest as there was some loophole / negligence on the part of the complainant also in the matter of production of policies in original before the o.p./ insurer while submitting application for cancellation of the policy as per terms and conditions of the policy.
Considering the above facts and circumstances if Rs. 3,000/- is awarded as compensation for harassment of the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs then none would be prejudice.
In view of the present circumstances we hold that complainant has been able to prove there is deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. and complainant is entitled to refund of the premium amount to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- paid as annual premium in respect of three policies purchased from the o.p. company. We do not like to award any amount as interest on refund amount if same is paid within period as fixed by this Forum.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 278 of 2016 ( HDF 278 of 2016 ) be and the same is hereby allowed on contest with cost.
The O.P. insurance company, is hereby directed to refund of Rs. 74,456/- paid as annual premium in respect of policy / contract no. 51778996, Rs. 19,800/- paid against policy contract no. 51803693 and contract no. 51784706 amounting to Rs. 59,760/- i.e., Rs. 1,75,000/- ( Rs. One lakh seventy-five thousand ) in total subject to condition that this complainant shall submit the said three insurance policies in original to the o.p. insurance company / insurer by 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
The O.P. insurance company, is hereby further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
O.P. is hereby directed to pay back the amount awarded above including the amount of compensation and litigation costs to the complainant by 30 days from the date of receipt of three policy documents in original from complainant ; failing which it will carry simple interest @ 10% p.a. after the expiry of above 30 days till its full realization.
If o.p./ insurance company fails to comply with the direction made above in the matter of payment of awarded amount within the period mentioned above, then complainant is at liberty to realize the same with due course of law.
Let a plain copy of the judgment be given to the petitioner free of costs, and other plain copies also be served upon both the o.p., insurance by registered post / speed post with A.D. as early as possible.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Abdul Kuddus )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
