Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The Appellant has approached this Commission aggrieved with the impugned order being passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-I (North), thereby dismissing the complaint case filed by the present Appellant. 

The facts in brief giving rise to the present Appeal are that she did not receive the original policy bond from the Respondent in time.  As her persistent endeavour did not yield any positive result for long, she expressed her desire to cancel the said policy.  Thereafter, a duplicate copy of the policy bond was sent to her by the Insurance Company.  However, as she lost her faith in the said company, she returned the duplicate copy of the purported policy to the Respondent seeking reimbursement of the premium amount from the Insurance Company.  As the Respondent did not take any positive step in this regard, the instant complaint case was filed.  The counter case of the Respondent was that the original policy papers were sent to the policyholder through courier and as per its official record, the same was delivered to the Appellant safely.  In any case, when the matter was brought to its notice, the Appellant was asked to follow due official procedure, which she did not do.  Still, as a good gesture, a duplicate copy of the policy bond was provided to her subsequently.  As the cancellation request was made beyond the free-look period, according to the Respondent, the Appellant did not deserve any relief.

Both sides were heard at length in the matter and documents on record gone through carefully.

On one hand, the Appellant denied receipt of the original policy bond from the Respondent.  On the other, the Respondent claimed that the same was delivered to the registered address of the policyholder through courier on 22-10-2013. 

In view of such rival contentions of the parties, no doubt, the concerned PoD (proof of delivery) could put at rest all confusion in the matter.  For some obscure reasons, however, the Respondent did not place it before us.  Therefore, we have no qualms according benefit of doubt to the Appellant.

Next, let us consider, whether the cancellation request was made within the free-look period or not.

Given that the Respondent has miserably failed to adduce any cogent documentary proof in support of its contention that the policy bond was indeed delivered to the Appellant on 22-10-2013, it can safely be inferred that the policy bond (duplicate though) was delivered to the Appellant on 27-08-2014.  The cancellation request being made on 28-08-2014, it is apparent that the same was made well within the free-look period. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the Appellant had no moral or legal right to forfeit the premium amount of the Appellant. 

Accordingly, we allow this Appeal.  Consequent thereof, the impugned order is set aside.  Respondent is directed to return, within 40 days from this day, Rs. 51,545/- to the Appellant along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. over the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint case till full and final payment is made.  The Respondent shall further pay litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant.