Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 595
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President, Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Mamta – Respondent
SC/5/A/118/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhishek Bhatnagar
For the Respondents: None
The insured party's failure to exercise the free look period nullifies claims of deficiency in service concerning insurance contract terms.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 and Section 24A - Appeal against decision of District Commission allowing consumer complaint - Appellant alleged deficiency in service regarding life insurance policy - Court found that respondent did not exercise the option of free look period, leading to policy lapse - Judgment set aside as no deficiency in service was established. (Paras 12, 13)
(B) Contracts of Insurance - Evident that the insurance agent acts as an agent of the insured during proposal - It is presumed that signing parties understand and consent to the terms. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Complainant invested in a life insurance policy based on assurances by the insurance agent but faced difficulties in obtaining promised terms upon delay. The insurance company failed to refund the amount despite a cancellation request.
Findings of Court:
Respondent failed to act within the free look period and allowed the policy to lapse by not paying subsequent premiums. The court concluded that no deficiency in service existed.
Issues: The court addressed the establish validity of the policy terms and the alleged deficiencies in service by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The insurance policy was bound by stipulated terms, and the complainant's failure to act within the free look period signifies acceptance of terms.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant's assurance-induced investment in insurance policy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's denial of allegations alongside procedural defense. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial assessment of contract terms and conditions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court finds no deficiency in service given lapsed policy. (Para 12) |
| 5. final ruling allowing appeal against previous judgment. (Para 13) |
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 08 of 2018 styled as Smt. Mamta vs. Manager, Bharti AXA Life Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite parties, jointly or separately, to pay Rs. 1,52,501/- to the complainant alongwith Rs. 3,000/- within a period of one month from the date of judgment and order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment from the opposite parties. On the date of compliance, the complainant shall transfer the original policy bond to the opposite parties.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has alleged that an agent of the opposite party No. 2 – Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. visited her residence and induced her to invest in Life Insurance Policy of opposite party No. 2. The agent assured that the said policy was distinct and more advantageous than other available life insurance product, assuring the complainant all the safety of the investment. She was further informed that only one time investment was required and she can withdraw the amount alongwith interest after three years and will also be insured for life of the complainant. Based on these assurances, the complainant agreed to invest in the said policy. The agent thereafter obtained her signature on the proposal form and collected the necessary details. Subsequently, the complainant deposited lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,52,501/- in cash at the office of the opposite party No. 2 at Haldwani, Nainital for which a receipt dated 31.03.2015 was duly issued. The complainant was informed that she would receive the policy within 15- 20 days. However, when she did not receive the policy documents, she approached the opposite party No. 2 and the local agent, and she was assured that the policy documents would be delivered soon. She received the policy documents after a delay of three months approximately. Upon examining the policy, the complainant was shocked to find that the terms and conditions of the policy were entirely different from those explained to her by the agent. When she verbally informed the opposite party No. 2 that she did not wish to continue the policy, she was informed that her investment was safe and that after three years she would receive the full amount with interest. However, due to urgent financial needs in November, 2017, the complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party No. 1 on dated 29.11.2017 requesting the cancellation of the policy and refund of the amount deposited by her. However, the opposite party No. 1 neither responded to her letter, nor refunded the deposited amount. The act of the opposite parties for not refunding the deposited amount with interest constitutes deficiency in service. As the branch office of opposite party No. 2 is located in Haldwani, Nainital and they are doing business in this district, hence, the District Commission has jurisdiction to hear the complaint of the complainant. The complainant claimed that the failure to refund the amount constitutes deficiency in service, hence, she is entitled to get refund from the opposite parties.
3. In the written statement, the opposite parties den
