Archive · 7 Sep 2026
Hyderabad Commission Orders Refund in Insurance Mis-Selling Case
A retired professor put ₹10 lakh into an insurance product after visiting a bank.
She said the product was explained as an investment rather than insurance.
She also said she was told it was a one-time payment, although the policy required yearly payments.
The bank and insurance company said she had approved the policy and signed the documents.
A consumer commission examined what happened.
It said signing papers does not always show that a person understood a complicated product.
It also said the policy documents were not sent in a way that gave her a fair chance to cancel.
The commission ordered the policy to be closed and the money returned, along with additional compensation and costs.
A Hyderabad consumer commission ordered an insurer to refund ₹10 lakh invested by a 73-year-old retired associate professor.
The commission also awarded ₹50,000 in compensation and ₹10,000 in litigation costs, payable jointly by the bank and insurer.
The woman said agents presented the insurance policy as an investment and promised ₹2.67 lakh annually after four years.
The bank and insurer denied wrongdoing, saying the policy was issued with her request, approval and signed documents.
The commission ruled that signatures and delivery of policy documents did not prove free and informed consent, especially given her age and circumstances.
- Who
- A 73-year-old retired associate professor, a bank and an insurance company were involved in the dispute.
- What
- The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered closure of an insurance policy, a ₹10 lakh refund, ₹50,000 compensation and ₹10,000 in costs.
- When
- The woman invested the money on 4 September 2023; the commission issued its order on 27 August, though the article does not specify the year of the order.
- Where
- The dispute was decided by the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hyderabad.
- Why
- The commission found that the policy was not obtained through free and informed consent and that the bank and insurer were responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Consumer's Account
Bank and Insurer's Account
How the product was presented
Consumer's Account
The woman said agents presented the insurance product as an investment, described it as a one-time payment and told her it would provide ₹2.67 lakh annually after four years.
Bank and Insurer's Account
The insurer maintained that the policy had been issued based on the woman's request and approval.
Signatures and transaction documents
Consumer's Account
She alleged that bank officials obtained signatures on loan-related documents and then invested her money in the policy without her intending to buy insurance.
Bank and Insurer's Account
The bank denied obtaining signatures on blank paper and argued that the insurance transaction was between the woman and the insurer.
Opportunity to review or cancel
Consumer's Account
The woman said she was told cancellation could first occur in September 2024 and later in September 2025, while she was abroad when the policy documents were sent.
Bank and Insurer's Account
The insurer said the physical policy pack was dispatched and delivered to her address on 18 September 2023, supporting its position that the policy process had been completed.
- Amount invested
- ₹10 lakh
- Refund ordered
- ₹10 lakh
- Compensation
- ₹50,000, payable jointly by the bank and insurer
- Costs
- ₹10,000
- Consumer's age
- 73 years
- Promised benefit
- ₹2.67 lakh annually after four years, according to the woman's complaint
- Policy document delivery
- The insurer said the physical policy pack was delivered to her permanent address on 18 September 2023