The free-look period cannot defeat mis-selling claims where policy terms were never supplied.

The petitioner-insurer challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order dated 07.11.2025, which affirmed concurrent findings of the District and State Consumer Commissions.

The consumer had purchased an insurance plan on payment of an annual premium and subsequently paid a renewal premium. She alleged that the policy had been mis-sold and materially differed from the financial plan represented to her.

She further asserted that she had not been supplied the policy document and therefore remained unaware of its terms and conditions.

The District Commission allowed the complaint, directing refund of the entire premium with 9% annual interest, compensation and costs. The State Commission dismissed the insurer’s appeal on 28.10.2024, and the National Commission dismissed the insurer’s second appeal on 07.11.2025.

The connected writ petitions involved substantially identical facts and legal questions.

Whether the insurer could rely on the statutory “free-look period” under Regulation 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, when the consumer had allegedly not been supplied the policy document.

Whether the insurer could enforce policy terms restricting surrender or refund of premium where the policy was found to have been mis-sold through misrepresentation or an unfair trade practice.

Whether the concurrent findings of the District, State and National Consumer Fora warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly the principles governing consumer complaints involving misrepresentation, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

It considered Regulation 6(2) of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002, which provides a fifteen-day “free-look period” enabling a policyholder to review and return the policy.

The Court held that the free-look provision cannot be used as a shield against a proved case of misrepresentation or unfair trade practice where the policyholder was not supplied the policy document or informed of its terms.

Similarly, contractual restrictions concerning surrender of a policy or refund of premium cannot be enforced against a consumer who was not provided the policy terms.

The Court also followed the view of a Coordinate Bench in CWP Nos. 37399 and 37438 of 2025, decided on 15.12.2025, which had rejected a similar challenge by the insurer.

The Court found that the consumer had established before the Consumer Fora that the policy document was never supplied to her. Consequently, she could not reasonably have known either the policy’s terms or the availability of the fifteen-day free-look period.

The insurer therefore could not invoke the consumer’s failure to exercise that period to defeat a claim arising from established mis-selling.

For the same reason, the insurer could not rely on the clause requiring completion of two years before surrender or limiting refund to the surrender value.

The Court further noted that the insurer had failed to distinguish the present cases from the earlier Coordinate Bench decision concerning the same impugned National Commission order and similar grounds of challenge.

No basis was therefore found to interfere with the concurrent factual and legal findings of the Consumer Fora.

It held that the free-look period and policy-based surrender restrictions could not defeat the consumer’s claim where the policy document had not been supplied and the policy had been mis-sold through misrepresentation or unfair trade practice.

All the writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.