(Delivered on 29/09/2017)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Member

1. Mr. Narendra Khobragade, the authorized representative of the appellant is present.

     All these three appeals are being disposed of at the stage of admission as common question of law and facts are involved in them.

2. The appellants herein are the original complainants in three complaints filed before the District Forum below. They were registered as complaints bearing Nos. 211/15, 212/15 and 213/15. The common case  of the appellants in those three complaints in brief is as under.

     The respondents are officers of Life Insurance Company. The agent of the respondents had assured the appellants that upon payment of the premium as mentioned in those complaints, they would get monthly pension from respondents as per those policies. Therefore they paid the premium described in the complaints and obtained  policies as specified in complaints in the name of each appellant. However they found that no such monthly pension from  the commencement of the policies is  payable to them. Therefore they issued notice dated 3/9/2015 to the respondents for getting refund of the premium with interest. The premium was not refunded. Therefore aforesaid three complaints were filed before the District Forum, Chandrapur praying that direction may be given to the respondents to refund the premium with compensation and cost as specified in prayer clause of each of the complaint.

3. The District Forum issued notice in each complaint to the respondent. They appeared and filed reply. They denied the aforesaid case of the appellants that they  had agreed to provide monthly pension as stated  in the complaints. They submitted that after receiving the policies by the appellant, time of 15 days was provided as  free look  period for  cancellation of the policies. However the appellants did not take any objection within 15 days  of receipt of  the policies and therefore  policies  cannot be cancelled after period of 15 days.
4. The District Forum  below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record, passed identical impugned orders in the said three complaints. The District Forum accepted the defence of the respondents and held that as  objection was not taken within 15 days of the receipt of policy i.e. it within “Free Look Period” cannot be said that the respondents committed breach of policy condition and rendered deficient service to the appellants. Therefore the Forum dismissed all the three complaints as per three identical orders dated 19/7/2017
5. Thus, feeling aggrieved, the original complainants have filed those three appeals. Today we have heard Mr. Narendra Khobragade, the authorized representative of the appellants in all the appeals at the stage of admission. He submitted that three policies  were received by the agent of the respondents  on behalf of the appellants and he did not handover those policies  to the appellants within a  free look period of 15 days and therefore objection about those policies could not be submitted  within said period to the respondents. Thus, according to him, the District Forum below has not considered the material  that the policies were issued by the respondents by misleading the appellants that they would  get monthly pension from the commencement of the policies.
6. However we find that there was no case of the appellant before the District Forum that policies were received by the agent of the respondents and he retained those appeals for  entire free look  period of 15 days and then he handed over those appeals after the period of 15 days to the appellants and therefore they could not submit objection within 15 days to the respondents. Moreover, in appeal also no such  ground is raised by the appellants. Hence we hold that ground raised  for first  in appeals during hearing cannot be accepted and it cannot be said  that the policies were retained for 15 days by the agent of the respondents and hence appellant could not submit objection to the respondents within that time.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the agent of the respondents was not joined to the complaints as one of the opposite party.  This is also one of the  ground to hold   that the appellants cannot raise the ground that agent  had retained the polices during  free look  period of 15 days.
8. We are therefore of the considered view that the District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion under impugned orders that  the respondents have not rendered deficient  service to the appellants by not refunding the premium as  free look period of 15 days was already over when the notice was served by the appellants to the respondents. Hence we find that all those three appeals deserve to be dismissed at the stage of admission.

ORDER

1. All these three appeals bearing Nos. 17/341, 17/342 and 17/343 are hereby dismissed.
2. No order as to cost in all these three appeals.
3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.