*NEW DELHI:* The Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Commission has directed Bharti AXA Life Insurance to refund *Rs 2.74 lakh* to a policyholder after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice over the alleged delayed supply of policy terms and conditions.
The commission also awarded *Rs 10,000 as compensation* and Rs 3,000 towards costs. The order was passed on August 20, 2026.
## Why did the policyholder seek a refund?
According to the commission order, the complainant purchased a Bharati AXA Life Guaranteed Income Pro policy in favour of his daughter and paid the first annual premium of *Rs 3,09,145*, including GST, on February 22, 2022.
The complainant alleged that the insurer provided him with the handbook containing the policy’s terms and conditions only three months after he made the payment.
He later suffered a stroke and required treatment and surgery. As he was the sole earning member of his family and could not afford to pay the remaining premiums, he asked the insurer to discontinue the policy and refund the premium.
The insurer rejected the request, saying there was no provision for a refund at that stage. The complainant then approached the insurance ombudsman, which dismissed his complaint while allowing him to pursue the matter before another forum.
## What did the insurer tell the consumer commission?
The commission bench comprising President P V Jayarajan and members Preetha G Nair and Viju V R noted that the insurer appeared through a lawyer but did not file a written response to the complaint.
The bench also noted that the insurer had not produced evidence showing that the policy handbook had been provided to the complainant before his proposal was accepted.
The commission referred to regulations requiring insurers to provide material information about proposed insurance coverage and furnish policyholders with relevant documents. It also relied on Supreme Court judgments holding that policy conditions that were not disclosed cannot subsequently be relied upon against an insured person.
The commission said the complainant had specifically raised the issue of the missing handbook before the insurance ombudsman as well. It found that the insurer had produced no evidence to counter his claim.
The bench observed:
> “There is no proof before this commission to show that the handbook containing the terms and conditions of the policy was handed over to the complainant before the acceptance of the proposal form.”
The commission said the complainant’s evidence remained unchallenged in the absence of contrary evidence from the insurer.
## Why did the commission hold the insurer responsible?
The commission concluded that the complainant had established that the policy terms were not supplied to him before the policy was accepted.
However, while deciding the amount to be refunded, the bench also considered the expenses incurred by the insurer while issuing the policy, including GST, documentation and agent commission.
The commission therefore held that the insurer could retain *Rs 35,000* from the amount paid by the complainant towards those expenses.
The bench said the complainant had partly established his case through his affidavit and the documents submitted before the commission.
The commission then considered whether the insurer’s conduct amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It concluded that the complainant had suffered financial loss and mental agony because of the insurer’s actions.
The bench held:
> “From the available evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.”
It further held that the insurer was liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused by the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
## How much will the insurer have to pay?
The commission directed the two opposite parties to jointly and severally pay *Rs 2,74,145 as refund, along with **Rs 10,000 compensation* and *Rs 3,000 towards costs*.
The amount has to be paid within *30 days* of the order.
If the refund and compensation are not paid within that period, the amount, excluding the litigation costs, will carry *9% annual interest* from the date of the order until payment.
The ruling provides relief to the policyholder while holding the insurer accountable for failing to establish that the policy terms were supplied before the insurance proposal was accepte
