IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of statutory provisions, such as the free look period, should be in accordance with fundamental legal principles, as established in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, though counter affidavit has been filed to the present writ petition.

2. By means of present writ petition the Insurance Company namely Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered office in Mumbai has approached this Court challenging the order dated 09.06.2017, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat thereby allowing the claim preferred by respondent no. 2-claimant.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent no. 2 had applied for various insurance policies for his life and life of his wife by submitting a proposal form obtaining a insurance policy and by paying the proposal deposit amount. In all respondent no. 2 had applied for four policies and had cumulatively deposited premium of Rs. 2,49,994/- towards the said policies. All the policies were duly dispatched to respondent no. 2 and had been received by him.

4. Subsequent to receipt of the said policies respondent no. 4 was aggrieved by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said policies which according to him were contrary to the statements made by the Agent of the petitioner insurance company who had approached him for selling the said policies and consequently the policies being at variance with what was promised to him, he informed the Insurance Company that he wanted to repudiate the said policies and duly informed the petitioner also about the same. He also asked for refund of the premium deposited by him.

5. The petitioner by means of letter dated 04.10.2013, which was received by respondent no. 2, declined to accept the request made by respondent no. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances respondent no. 2 approached the Insurance Ombudsman with regard to his grievance. The Ombudsman by means of order dated 29.05.2015, directed the petitioner to cancel all the policies and adjust the premium into a new single premium policy in the name of respondent no. 2 or any of his family member and subjected the award to the completion of formalities by the complainant-respondent no. 2.

6. It seems that respondent no. 2 was not satisfied by the order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the Ombudsman and approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an application raising all grievance against petitioner. Notices were issued to the petitioner, who had put in appearance and opposed the claim made by respondent no. 2. In their opposition they have submitted that 15 days free-look period has been granted to the insured and it is within those 15 days that the insured had discretion to repudiate or rescind from the conditions of the policies. He submitted that after expiry of 15 days the insured as well as the Insurance Company are bound by the terms and conditions of the Policies.

7. The Permanent Lok Adalat looked into all the evidence and documents filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 2. Dispute was also raised with regard to receipt of Policies and the date from which the 15 day free look period would commence. On behalf of claimant-respondent no. 2, it was stated that from 07.09.2013 the insured and his wife had gone to Bellur (Tamil Nadu) in connection with their treatment as they were not well and there they had undergone eye surgery at Shanker Netralaya, Chennai on 16.09.2013 and on the said date they were at Chennai. Then subsequent to the above surgery their check up took place and respondent no. 2 returned back to Lucknow on 22.09.2013. It is only on 24.09.2013 that respondent no. 2 received four policy bonds from the servant of his neighbor who had received the same on 19.09.2013, when he was away in Tamil Nadu.

8. In support of his submissions, respondent no. 2 had filed medical papers issued by the Shanker Netralaya, Chennai from which the Permanent Lok Adalat was satisfied that respondent no. 2 was under treatment from 16.09.2013 to 29.09.2013 and then subsequently on 20.09.2013 he had gone to Ch