Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited And Anr vs Usha Rani And Ors

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
[ Serial No.122 ]
(1) CWP -18557-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Usha Rani and others .....Respondents
[Serial No.123]
(2) CWP -18570-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others .....Respondents
(3) CWP -18572-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others ..... Respondents
(4) CWP -18573-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others ..... Respondents
(5) CWP -18574-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
(6) CWP -18575-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
(7) CWP -18577-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Bal Krishan Sharma and others ..... Respondents
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [2]
(8) CWP -18578-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Mandeep Kaur and others ..... Respondents
(9) CWP -18579-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others .....Respondents
(10) CWP -18580-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
(11) CWP -18582-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others .....Respondents
(12) CWP -18584-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Avneet Kaur and others .....Respondents
(13) CWP -18603-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Saroj Goel and others .....Respondents
(14) CWP -18605-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [3]
(15) CWP -18624-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Rattan Chauhan and others ..... Respondents
(16) CWP -18625-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Rattan Chauhan and others ..... Respondents
(17) CWP -18627-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Saroj Goel and others ..... Respondents
(18) CWP -18644-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
(19) CWP -18646-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Gopal and others ..... Respondents
(20) CWP -18647-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Rattan Chauhan and others ..... Respondents
(21) CWP -18657-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Gian Chand and others ..... Respondents
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [4]
(22) CWP -18667-2026
Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Ltd. and another
......Petitioners
Versus
Saroj Goel and others ..... Respondents
Reserved on : 24.08.2026
Pronounced on : 09.09.2026
Uploaded on : 10.09.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced :Full Judgment
Whether there is delay in uploading the judgment : NA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. Adhiraj Bhandari, Advocate and
Mr. Shubh Karam, Advocate for the petitioners.

SUVIR SEHGAL , J.
1. By this common judgement, this Court shall dispose of all the
above noted writ petitions filed under article 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India by the Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner-insurer), as all the matters involve
common questions of law and facts.
2. For the sake of convenience, common factual matrix is being
noticed from CWP-18557-2026.
3. Petitioner-insurer has approached this Court for issuance of a
writ of certiorari to quash, order dated 07.11.2025, (Annexure P-4), passed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for
short ‘ National Commission ’), in second appeal whereby concurrent finding
by the fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been
affirmed.
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [5]
4 The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. Consumer-
respondent No.1 purchased an insurance plan, with an annual premium.
After retaining the policy for some time and paying renewal premium.
consumer-respondent No.1 discovered that the product sold to her was
drastically different from the financial plan presented to her. A complaint
under the Consumer Protection Act, was filed before the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short ‘District
Commission’), asserting that complainant was a victim of
misrepresentation and the policy had been mis-sold to her.
5. Vide order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), District
Commission, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-insurer to
refund the entire deposited premium along with interest @ of 9% per annum,
besides paying compensation and costs. Upon appeal, State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, (for short ‘State
Commission’), dismissed the first appeal vide judgement dated 28.10.2024
(Annexure P-2) and affirmed the order passed by the District Commission. A
second appeal filed by the petitioner-insurer, before the National
Commission has been dismissed vide the impugned order.
6. Counsel for the petitioner-insurer has contended that consumer-
respondent No.1, did not invoke the mandatory fifteen days “free look
period” under regulation 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’
Interests) Regulations, 2002. He contends that the consumer was legally
bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which precluded
any claim for refund of premium exceeding the surrender value given in the
schedule to the policy. It has been argued that the Consumer Fora has
committed a factual error in coming to a conclusion that the policy
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [6]
document was not supplied to the consumer within the free look period.
7. We have heard counsel for the petitioner-insurer and considered
his submissions besides examining the record of the Consumer Fora
appended with the petition.
8. The argument raised by the petitioner-insurer regarding “free
look period”, cannot be taken as a shield to defeat the claim of an insured
against a proved misrepresentation or unfair trade practice. It has been
established by the consumer before the Consumer Fora that she was never
supplied with a copy of the insurance policy. Consequently, she never
became aware of the terms of the product purchased by her, nor was she
aware of the 15 days’ “free look period” upon which much stress has been
laid by the counsel for the petitioner-insurer. Complainant has demonstrated
that she became aware of the policy plan only when the next year's premium
was demanded from her. In this backdrop, petitioner-insurer cannot rely
upon the “free look clause” to contend that the consumer is bound by the
terms and conditions of the policy. The petitioner-Insurer cannot also get any
benefit of the clause which provides that a policy cannot be surrendered
before the period of two years from its purchase, as consumer was not
supplied with the terms and conditions.
9. Furthermore, it deserves to be noticed that the impugned order dated
07.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the National Commission has been
tested before this Court by petitioner-insurer in CWP No.37399 of 2025 and
CWP No.37438 of 2025, which were dismissed by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 15.12.2025. The grounds urged here and the
questions that arose for consideration in the said petitions are similar.
Counsel for petitioner has not been able to distinguish the facts or grounds to
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-18557-2026 and other connected cases [7]
satisfy this court that the present bunch deserves to be dealt with differently.
This Court is not inclined to take a different view from the one taken by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.12.2025.
10. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find merit
in these petitions, which are dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. All pending misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
)
(SUVIR SEHGAL
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE
09.09.2026
Anjal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANJAL GUPTA
2026.09.10 14:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document