IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Burden of Proof – Burden of proof regarding delivery lies with the insurer. The Commission termed the “personal delivery without receipt” argument as untenable.
(2) Unfair Trade Practice – Asking a consumer to apply for a duplicate bond when the original was never delivered amounts to an unfair trade practice.

ORDER

Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member.—Present Complaint is filled by the Complainants namely, Shri Chirag S/o Bharat Sheth and Payal W/o Chirag Sheth against the opponents namely Branch Manager, LIC Nagpur and the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC Nagpur under section 47 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (In shot “The Act”).

2. The factual matrix of the Consumer Complaint is as follows- The complainants have purchased the certain policies namely Jeevan Shiromani from LIC. The sum assured for each policy was Rs.1 Crore. The policies under Jeevan Shiromani Plan have a unique feature that loan can be secured against the said policies to the extent of 90% of the premium paid from the date of commencement. This was a relevant consideration for the complainant to take the said policy. Apart from this Jeevan Shiromani Plan has several other unique features. Such as, the policy holder can get paid up immediately after a period of 1 years from the date of commencement as against the 3 years for the other policies. It is most important that, the plan comes with a coverage for the critical illness, accidental death benefit, disability benefit etc.

3. The Opp. Party No.1 assured the complainant that the policy document would be provided soon as it would be received. A copy of the said email dated 03/02/2018 issued by the Opp. Party No.1. The complainant submits that despite the assurances given by the email dated 03/02/2018, the policy document was not received. The complainant made enquiries with the Opp. Party No.1 even after 03/02/2018 and was assured that the policy document would be delivered shortly. The complainants issued another email dated 19/04/2018 requesting to deliver the policy bond. The Opp. Party No.1 did not bother to respond to the said email. Personal visits by the complainant and his agent also did not yield any result. The complainant was informed that some high rank official from the Divisional Office would personally hand over the policy bond to him. After waiting some time, the complainant issued another email dated 31/10/2018.

4. Since the policy bond was not received, the complainant could not avail loan against the said policy although the policy was taken by the complainant in view of the unique feature, which permits the policy holder/s to avail loan against the policy to the extent of 90% of the premium amount paid from the date of commencement. The complainant submits that he has suffered financial hardships since the entire amount deposited by him was blocked and could not be used and also because he could not avail loan against the policy for want of the policy document.

5. The Complainant prayed,—

i) to direct the Opp. Party to issue original policy bond of the policies purchased by the complainants and accept the premium without charging any interest or additional amount on the policies, or

ii) To issue direction to the Opp. Party to refund the amount of Rs.1,02,32,735/- along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of payment till its realization.

iii) To declare that the Opp. Party indulged unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for non-providing policy bond which are the important documents and violated mandatory directions of IRDA Regulations. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission.

6. Notices were issued. OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed the Written Version (W.S.) along with Preliminary objection and specific pleadings. OP submitted that it is denied that the complainants could not avail the right of free look of the policy due to the non provided a policy document.

7. he sum assured of each policy is 1 crore. The policy being high-value policy the customers are given special treatment and therefore unlike the normal policies the original Jeevan Shiromani policy bond is personally handed over to the customer and as mark of respect and treating them as a privileged customer acknowledgement is not asked for while handing over the original policy document. The payment