ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed by complainant against order dated 06.06.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 121/2013 title Mrs. Manjeet Kaur v. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited . Brief facts of Case: 2. Complainant Manjeet Kaur filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party pleaded therein that opposite party issued HDFC Saving Assurance Plan No. 15151151 in favour of complainant in the month of January 2013. It is pleaded that as per policy date of birth of complainant shown as 24.08.1953 but factually complainant was born on 24.08.1951. It is pleaded that date of birth of complainant was wrongly recorded as 24.08.1953 in the policy contrary to facts. It is pleaded that date of birth of complainant is factually 24.08.1951. It is pleaded that as per terms & conditions of insurance policy HDFC Saving Assurance Plan could not be issued in favour of person whose age is exceeding sixty years. It is pleaded that at the time of issuance of insurance policy age of complainant was exceeding 60 years and policy is ipso-facto null and void. It is pleaded that complainant requested the opposite party to cancel the policy and return premium amount to the tune of Rs. 98977/- (Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy seven) paid by complainant but opposite party did not accept the request of complainant. Complainant sought relief of refund of amount to the tune of Rs. 98977/- (Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy seven) along with interest @18%. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as litigation costs. In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) as damages for using unfair trade practice by opposite party. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has suppressed material facts from the Forum. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complainant remained silent for about one and half year and allegations in the present complaint are nothing but only afterthought allegations. It is pleaded that complainant is an educated lady and is Homeopathy Medical Doctor and she has herself signed the proposal form of policy. It is pleaded that complainant remained silent for about one and half year and allegations in the present complaint are nothing but only afterthought allegations. It is pleaded that complainant is an educated lady and is Homeopathy Medical Doctor and she has herself signed the proposal form of policy. It is pleaded that complainant herself concealed her age at the time of obtaining policy and it is further pleaded that complainant is not entitled to any relief due to her own act and conduct. It is pleaded that insurance policy stood lapsed due to non-payment of premium within stipulated period as per terms and conditions of policy. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on dated 06.06.2016. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant Manjeet Kaur filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 7. Complainant Manjeet Kaur filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is holder of policy HDFC Saving Assurance Plan No. 15-169692 with ID No. 59040141. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent agreed for the proposal of opposite party and obtained HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party delivered different policy i.e. HDFC Saving Assurance Plan Policy to complainant which was not accepted by complainant at any point of time. There is further recital in affidavit that agent of opposite party took token signature of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that schedule of benefits was not discussed with the complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant obtaining short term policy and did not obtain long term policy ending May 2022. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party recorded age of complainant in the policy as 24.08.1953 whereas factually complainant was born on dated 24.08.1951. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party also did not conduct any medical examination of complainant before issuing policy. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party recorded age of complainant in the policy as 24.08.1953 whereas factually complainant was born on dated 24.08.1951. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party also did not conduct any medical examination of complainant before issuing policy. There is further recital in affidavit that it is mandatory to conduct medical examination of complainant prior to issuance of policy. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 8. Per contra opposite party filed affidavit of Amit Khanna Associate Manager (Legal) HDFC. There is recital in affidavit that complainant herself agreed for the policy HDFC Saving Assurance Policy with annual premium of Rs. 98977/- (Ninety eight thousand nine hundred seventy seven). There is further recital in affidavit that sum assured was Rs. 808023/- (Eight lac eight thousand twenty three). There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has herself submitted proposal form on dated 03.05.2012 with her signature annexure R-1. There is further recital in affidavit that documents were delivered to complainant vide courier AWB No. 021335861 on dated 14.05.2012. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has cooked up false story that she received documents in January 2013. There is further recital in affidavit that terms and conditions of policy were explained to complainant and declaration dated 03.05.2012 with her signature annexure R-2 was given by complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has herself submitted her affidavit in support of her date of birth annexure R-3. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant had herself shown her date of birth in annexure R-3 affidavit as 24.08.1953. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is shifting from India to Canada and wants her policy to be cancelled. 9. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that factually appellant applied for HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy and opposite party delivered different policy i.e. HDFC Saving Assurance Plan Policy and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. State Commission has carefully perused annexure R-1 application form for issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy. Application form for issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy was signed by complainant Manjeet Kaur on dated 03.05.2012. State Commission has carefully perused annexure R-1 application form for issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy. Application form for issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy was signed by complainant Manjeet Kaur on dated 03.05.2012. It is proved on record that complainant is not an illiterate lady but complainant is highly educated lady and is Homeopathy Medical Doctor. State Commission is of the opinion that after signing document complainant has herself admitted that she applied for HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time after signing the application form for issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan policy. 10. Similarly State Commission has also perused declaration given by complainant Manjeet Kaur on dated 03.05.2012 annexure R-2 and there is declaration on behalf of complainant that she confirmed that she had read and understood the important features as mentioned in the HDFC Life Insurance Plan and agreed to proceed with her application. Declaration is signed by complainant Manjeet Kaur in the presence of Ankush Chauhan. State Commission is of the opinion that after signing declaration complainant voluntarily had accepted terms and conditions of HDFC Saving Assurance policy. In annexure R-2 there is specific declaration on behalf of complainant Manjeet Kaur that she hereby confirm that she had read and understood the important features of HDFC Saving Assurance Policy and agreed to proceed with her application. Name of insurance plan has been shown in SAP in the top of annexure R-2. It is held that complainant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Concept is based upon doctrine of election. See AIR 1993 SC 352 R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir . 11. State Commission has also perused affidavit annexure R-3 given by complainant and attested by public notary in the presence of independent advocate. Complainant has herself mentioned her date of birth in the affidavit as 24.08.1953. Complainant did not examine public notary and did not examine independent advocate in order to rebut affidavit annexure R-3. Adverse inference is drawn against complainant Manjeet Kaur for non-examination of material witnesses i.e. public notary who had attested affidavit on dated 03.05.2012 in the presence of independent advocate. Complainant was identified by independent advocate before public notary when complainant signed her affidavit annexure R-3 before public notary. 12. Adverse inference is drawn against complainant Manjeet Kaur for non-examination of material witnesses i.e. public notary who had attested affidavit on dated 03.05.2012 in the presence of independent advocate. Complainant was identified by independent advocate before public notary when complainant signed her affidavit annexure R-3 before public notary. 12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that due to rush of patients in clinic of complainant she could not check the documents annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 properly and signed the documents in good faith as per directions of agent of opposite party and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant is an educated medical doctor and she is not expected to sign important documents i.e. annexures R-1, R-2 & R-3 in a hurry manner. It is held that after signing documents annexures R-1, R-2 & R-3 complainant had accepted issuance of SAP insurance plan by opposite party. 13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that as per annexure C-3 certified issued by Central Board of Secondary Education complainant was born on dated 24.08.1951 and was not born on dated 24.08.1953 and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused document annexure C-1 filed by complainant herself which is application form submitted and signed by Manjeet Kaur for issue of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan submitted on 03.05.2012 to opposite party. There is positive recital in application form signed by complainant that in case during the term of policy it is observed that date of birth declared by complainant was false then HDFC would be entitled not to pay any part of claim and insurance policy would be deemed to be null and void and any premium paid would be forfeited in favour of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited. It is held that complainant has herself given declaration that she would forfeit her premium in case her date of birth would be found incorrect during the term of insurance policy. State Commission is of the opinion that terms and conditions of policy are binding upon both the parties and complainant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. State Commission is of the opinion that terms and conditions of policy are binding upon both the parties and complainant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. It is held that complainant herself committed breach of contract in the present case and hence she is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her in the complaint. It is well settled law that one who seeks equity must do equity herself. See 1991 CPC 619 NC Jaipur Metal & Electrical Limited v. Laxmi Industries . See 1992 CPC 149 NC General Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited v. J.K. Cement Works & Anr. . See 1997 (1) CPC 102 NC Mather and Patt (I) Limited v. M/s. Kaleeswari Industries . In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Annexure R-1 application form for the issuance of HDFC Saving Assurance Plan Policy signed by complainant Manjeet Kaur, Annexure R-2 declaration given by complainant Manjeet Kaur relating to HDFC Life Insurance Policy dated 03.05.2012 and Annexure R-3 affidavit given by complainant Manjeet Kaur specifying her date of birth as 24.08.1953 attested by public notary and identified by learned advocate will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs in State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.