ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, President.—The present Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal Nos. A/1120/2016, A/1121/2016, A/1122/2016 and A/1123/2016, whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals filed by the Complainants/Appellants and affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum by which the Complaints were dismissed.

2. Since the facts and question of law involved in all these Revision Petitions are similar except for minor variation in the dates, these Revision Petitions are disposed off through this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 2135 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Complaint No. CC/15/146.

3. Succinctly put, the material facts, giving rise to filing of the Complaint are that Babulal Das (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant/Petitioner) approached the Aviva Life Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Insurance Company) to purchase single premium Fixed Deposit Policy and obtained two separate Policies, Policy Nos. 10078550 on 03.12.2013 and Policy No. 10158954 on 14.08.2014 by paying premium of Rs.61,854/- towards each Policy. It is the say of the Complainant / Petitioner that although he had applied for single premium Fixed Deposit Policies yet the Respondent Insurance Company issued him Regular Traditional Premium Policies. He approached the Respondent Insurance Company and requested to rectify the anomalies, but in vain. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company, a Complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) seeking refund of his deposited amount alongwith compensation and litigation costs.

The Respondent Insurance Company contested the Complaint by filing written statement before the District Forum in which it was submitted that the Complainant is an educated person and he had voluntarily applied for the issued Insurance Policies. As per guidelines of IRDA, he was given 15 days free look period to go through the terms and conditions of the Policies and in case of disagreement, he had the right to cancel the Policies, but the Complainant did not cancel the same. Therefore, the contract was legally concluded. After 11 months of issuance of Policies, the Complainant made a Complaint on 24.03.2015 for which certain documents were asked from the Complainant but he did not provide the same. The Complainant has enjoyed the life risk cover for a certain period, therefore, the prayer of the Complainant to get the full premium amount back cannot be accepted as the same would cause loss to the Insurance Company. It was also submitted that the contract of insurance is an important document and they are performing its part of providing service and covering the risk of the life of the Complainant from the date of commencement of the Policy and as such, the Complainant is estopped from challenging the contract at a belated stage. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed the Complaint in following terms:-

“Our Supreme Court as well as our National Commission opined that the policy document is binding on both the parties and the policy is a contract between the insurer and the insured and both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. In the instant case it is the case of the petitioner that he deposited the amount in the fixed deposit scheme but save and except his statement in the complaint p