(Passed On 01/02/2016)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal is preferred by original OPs Nos. 2 and 3 LIC of India through its Divisional Manager and Branch Manager challenging the order dated 6/10/2005, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gadchiroli, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 6/2005, and thereby directing the opposite parties (Ops) to refund an amount of Rs. 1,18,095/- to the complainant which he had deposited towards premium. The said amount of premium be refunded with 6 percent interest per annum to be imposed from 14/2/2003 till the date of realization. The Forum has further allowed Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the complainant towards mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. Respondent Mr. Vijay Namdeorao Shrungarpawar be referred as complainant and appellants. Appellant No. 1 LIC of India through its Branch Manager and appellant No. 2 LIC of India through its Senior Divisional Manager be referred as OP Nos. 2 and 3 for the sake of convenience.
3. Facts in brief as setout by the complainant in his complaint are as under.

Complainant Mr. Vijay Namdeorao Shrungarpawar purchased two insurance policies of “ Komal Jivan Plan” in the name of his daughter Kumari Vaidehi Vijay Shrungarpawar and son Master Shiv Vijay Shrungarpawar. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,18,095/- towards the first premium of the aforesaid two policies on 29/11/2003 to the OPs Nos. 2 and 3 by cheque through its agent. It is the contention of the complainant that before he could receive the copy of the policy document, he informed the OP No. 2 by letter dated 14/02/2004 to cancel both the policies as he was undergoing financial crisis and therefore unable to pay the premium. As the OP No. 2 failed to take any cognizance, the complainant again issued a letter on 3/3/2004 informing OP No. 2 to close the two insurance policies and refund the amount of premium deposited by him towards the said policies. The complainant again by letter dated 14/12/2004, addressed to the OP No. 2 informed it that he has not yet received the copy of the policy nor refund of the premium amount as he had sought for cancellation of the said policies. He further by the same letter informed the OP No. 2 had issued letter to him informing the complainant that the application of the complainant for refund of money is under consideration and they would soon inform about it to him. It is further contended by the complainant that OP No. 3 by letter dated 25/2/2005 informed him (complainant) that the policies taken by the complainant cannot be cancelled as no proper reason was stated by the complainant for the cancellation of policies and referred to the letters dated 14/2/2004 and 3/3/2004 sent by the complainant to the OP. It is further contended by the complainant that reason assigned by him for cancellation of the insurance policies is proper reason and the OP has adopted unfair trade practice and rendered deficiency in service by avoiding to refund the amount of premium. Alleging accordingly the complainant filed a consumer complaint seeking refund of Rs. 2,01,123/- which was inclusive of amount of premium interest at the rate of 18 percent p.a. cost of proceedings and compensation towards mental harassment.

4. The OPs. Nos. 2 and 3 resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 by the said written version did not dispute the two insurance policies taken by the complainant in the name of his daughter and son and the amount of Rs. 1,18,095/- paid by the complainant towards the premium of the two policies on 29/11/2003. The OPs specifically submitted that they had issued the copy of the policies to the complainant and had sent a communication to that effect on 5/1/2004. The policy was already dispatched to the complainant and as the risk on the lives of the children of the complainant had already commenced  the policy  cannot be cancelled. The OPs had issued duplicate policies to the complainant by way of good gesture. They denied to have rendered deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of merits.
5. The Forum partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid and specifically held that the OPs/appellant herein have failed to prove that the policy document was sent it to the complainant which was duly received by him and therefore the OPs cannot be given benefit of  IRDA rules according to which  the policy holder can cancel the insurance policy and receive the refund of the premium amount within 15 days of receipt of the policy document.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the OPs have preferred this appeal.
7.  We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties, copy of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether the appellant has issued the policy documents to the respondent  and the respondent has sought for cancellation of policy infringing the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interest) Regulations, 2002 (IRDA)  rules which imposes a limit of 15 days after receipt of policy documents for cancellation of the same and refund of the premium. 
8. On perusal of the letter dated 5/1/2004 addressed to the life assured by the OP No. 2 does not reflect any acknowledgment of the complainant and in absence of any other cogent evidence on record to prove receipt of the policy documents, it cannot be presumed that the appellants have proved that the policy documents were received by the complainant. We perused the letters dated 3/3/2004, 14/12/2004, addressed to the OPs by the complainant which consistently mentioned that the complainant has not received the policy documents and the OP in reply to the aforesaid letters has no where disputed the said contention of the complainant. On the contrary  the OPs have mentioned that the request for cancellation of policy is under consideration and the complainant would be informed soon. The letter dated 25/2/2005 addressed to the complainant by the OP mentioned about the duplicate policy  bond  issued to the complainant.
9. The OPs have claimed “Good Gesture” towards issuance of duplicate policy document. It is difficult to accept the said “Good Gesture”  as the complainant has not asked for duplicate copies of policy documents. They issued same without his request. We are of the reasoned opinion that this gesture of issuance of duplicate is adopted to bring on record evidence to show that policy documents were given to the complainant as it could not bring any evidence to prove that the policy documents were  already supplied to the complainant. In our view as policy documents were not given by Ops to the complainant. The time of 15 days given under IRDA Rules for cancellation of policies is not attracted in present case. Moreover the cancellation of policies can be made on any ground by their purchaser. The only condition for cancellation of policy is that, it should be cancelled within 15 days of receipt of the policy. As policies were not given to complainant, he is entitled to refund of premium as per his letters of request.  For the foregoing reason we find no glaring infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 6/10/2005, passed by District Consumer Forum, Gadchiroli in consumer complaint bearing No 6/2015 is confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.