1 hr ago
Hyderabad Consumer Forum Orders Insurance Refund to Retired Professor
A retired professor said she went to a bank to send money to her son but was persuaded to buy an insurance policy instead.
She said the agents made the policy sound like a one-time investment with large yearly returns.
She also said she signed papers without understanding that the payment would be required every year.
The bank and insurance company denied misleading her.
The consumer commission found that she had not given fully informed consent.
It also said the policy papers were sent to an address where she was not staying because she was abroad.
This meant she did not have a fair chance to cancel the policy during the free-look period.
The commission ordered the insurer to return her Rs 10 lakh and ordered both parties to pay additional compensation and costs.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered an insurer to refund Rs 10 lakh to a 73-year-old retired associate professor.
The commission found that the policy was obtained without her free will and informed consent, and held the bank and insurer deficient in service.
The woman said agents presented the policy as a one-time investment promising annual returns of Rs 2.67 lakh after four years.
The commission said sending policy documents to her permanent address while she was abroad undermined her 10-15 day free-look cancellation period.
The bank and insurer were also ordered to jointly pay Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 10,000 in costs.
- Who
- A 73-year-old retired associate professor, her bank, and the insurance company involved in the policy.
- What
- The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the policy closed, Rs 10 lakh refunded, and additional compensation and costs paid.
- Where
- The dispute was heard by the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Telangana.
- When
- The disputed bank visit occurred on September 4, 2023; the commission’s order was dated August 27, and the woman returned from the United States in March 2024.
- Why
- The commission found that the policy was not obtained with free will and informed consent and that sending the documents to her permanent address while she was abroad denied her a meaningful free-look opportunity.
Complainant and Commission
Bank and Insurer
Whether the policy was properly explained
Complainant and Commission
The woman said bank officials and agents misrepresented the insurance as a one-time investment, took signatures on loan papers, and did not explain that it required yearly payments.
Bank and Insurer
The bank denied obtaining signatures on blank papers and said the insurance transaction was between the woman and the insurance company. The insurer said the policy was issued only after her request and approval.
Validity of consent
Complainant and Commission
The commission held that the close connection between the loan and insurance transactions raised doubts about the genuineness of her consent, particularly because she was a senior citizen unfamiliar with complex insurance terms.
Bank and Insurer
The insurance company said she accepted the policy without objection and that it had followed the insurance regulator’s guidelines and regulations.
Opportunity to cancel
Complainant and Commission
The commission said sending the policy documents to an address where she was not residing while she was outside India did not meaningfully provide the free-look period.
Bank and Insurer
The insurer said the physical policy pack was dispatched and delivered to her address on September 18, 2023.
Key facts
- Refund ordered
- Rs 10 lakh
- Additional compensation
- Rs 50,000
- Litigation costs
- Rs 10,000
- Complainant
- 73-year-old retired associate professor
- Free-look period
- 10-15 days to cancel a new policy and seek a refund
- Policy document delivery
- Sent to the complainant’s permanent address on September 18, 2023, while she was abroad
- Commission’s finding
- The bank and insurer were deficient in service and engaged in unfair trade practice
Quotes
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer dispute commission that issued the ruling
“This commission is of the opinion that the insurance policy was not obtained with free will and informed consent; the conduct of opposite parties number 1 to 3 (bank and insurance company) amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice”
indianexpress.com
“A statutory opportunity cannot be said to be meaningfully provided when the policy document was sent to an address where the complainant was not residing and when she was outside the country at the relevant time”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Insurance Refund After Missing Terms
Insurer must restore policy, pay Rs 1.10 lakh over hypertension
Mumbai Consumer Commission Pulls Up New India Assurance, Orders Payment
Telangana Panel Orders Tata AIA to Pay ₹1 Crore Claim
Haryana commission orders insurer to pay full US treatment claim
