JUDGMENT P.S. Rana (R), President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.04/2017 titled Bhupal Singh Thakur Versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Bhupal Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is retired teacher and he took Insurance policy No.05861823 dated 09.08.2007 from opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that annexure-C1 is the copy of Insurance policy issued by opposite party No.1 in the name of complainant. It is pleaded that annexure-C2 is copy of statement of account alongwith copies of cheques of different dates amounting to Rs.845000/-(Eight lac forty five thousand) issued by complainant in favour of opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that cheques issued by complainant were encashed by opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that annexure-C3 is copy of proposed unsigned contract dated 17.08.2015. It is pleaded that complainant refused to sign proposed contract dated 17.08.2015 and requested opposite party No.2 to refund advanced money paid by complainant. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 did not refund advanced paid money and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.845000/-(Eight lac forty five thousand) with interest from opposite parties. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.100000/-(One lac) from opposite parties. In addition complainant sought litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties despite notice and opposite parties were proceeded ex-parte by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 4. We have heard appellant in person and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.1 and we have also perused entire record carefully. Co-respondent No.2 is already ex-parte. 5. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether unsigned proposed contract dated 17.08.2015 annexure C-3 is binding upon complainant. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 6. Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is retired teacher and deponent took Insurance policy No.05861823 dated 09.08.2007 annexure-C1. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 6. Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is retired teacher and deponent took Insurance policy No.05861823 dated 09.08.2007 annexure-C1. There is recital in affidavit that Mr. Akhil Tyagi claimed himself to be executive officer of opposite party No.2 and informed complainant himself that opposite party No.2 is authorised business partner of opposite party No.1 and informed complainant that policy in question is in loss and if deponent wants to revive policy then deponent has to deposit a sum of Rs.45000/-(Forty five thousand) in the account of opposite party No.2. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent issued cheque No.336857 dated 20.07.2015 for an amount of Rs.45000/-(Forty five thousand) in favour of opposite party No.2 and executive officer of opposite party No.2 took the cheque from resident of deponent on the very same day and cheque was credited in account of opposite party No.2 on dated 24.07.2015. There is recital in affidavit that again opposite party No.2 called deponent and again demanded a sum of Rs.800000/-(Eight lac) on the same pretext with further assurance that re-investment would return huge benefits to deponent after completion of policy term. 7. There is recital in affidavit that again deponent issued cheque on dated 11.08.2015 and 12.08.2015 and paid an amount of Rs.400000/-(Four lac) in the name of opposite party No.2 i.e. AICRA Value Card Pvt. Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 sent contract of fresh Insurance policy for approval of deponent and after going through the terms and conditions of Insurance policy dated 17.08.2015 deponent did not sign fresh Insurance agreement dated 17.08.2015 and demanded back deposited amount. There is recital in affidavit that legal notice was also sent by deponent to opposite party No.2 by way of registered letter. There is recital in affidavit that despite registered notice opposite party No.2 did not refund deposited amount. There is recital in affidavit that act of opposite party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite parties did not appear before learned District Forum and opposite parties did not file any version and did not tender any evidence in rebuttal before learned District forum. 9. There is recital in affidavit that act of opposite party No.2 amounts to deficiency in service. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite parties did not appear before learned District Forum and opposite parties did not file any version and did not tender any evidence in rebuttal before learned District forum. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for amount of Rs.845000/-(Eight lac forty five thousand) with interest is decided accordingly. It is proved on record as per affidavit of complainant that complainant did not sign terms and conditions of fresh Insurance contract dated 17.08.2015. Terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy also not placed on record. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that when terms and conditions of fresh contract was submitted for signature of complainant then complainant did not agree to terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract and refused to sign terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract. Affidavit filed by complainant remained unrebutted on record. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties despite notice and there is no evidence on record that complainant has signed terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract. There is no evidence on record that complainant has admitted terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract. State Commission is of opinion that for valid fresh Insurance contract under Indian Contract Act 1872 there are three stages of Insurance contract (1) Communication of terms and conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract to insured by insurer (2) Acceptance of terms & conditions of fresh Insurance policy contract by insured (3) Communication of new contract of Insurance policy by insured to insurer. In the present matter there is no evidence on record that complainant has accepted terms and conditions of fresh insurance policy contract of insurer. As per law acceptance of fresh insurance contract must be absolute and unqualified. In the present matter opposite parties did not file version of consumer complaint and opposite parties also did not adduce any rebuttal evidence by way of affidavit. Affidavit filed by complainant remained unrebutted on record. State Commission is of the opinion that affidavit filed by complainant is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. 10. There is no evidence on record that exclusion clause was read over and explained to insured by insurer. Affidavit filed by complainant remained unrebutted on record. State Commission is of the opinion that affidavit filed by complainant is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. 10. There is no evidence on record that exclusion clause was read over and explained to insured by insurer. It is well settled law that when exclusion clause of insurance policy was not explained to insured then insurer could not take benefit of exclusion clause see Bharat Watch Company through its partner versus National Insurance Company through its Regional Manager,2019 2 HimLR 820 SC . See Apex Court Modern Insulators Ltd. versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 734 , See National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus D.P.Jain, (2007) 3 CPJ 34 NC . 11. As per section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 service means service of any description relating to banking, finance and Insurance company. State Commission is of opinion that even commercial service of Insurance company falls within the definition of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because Insurance company has received premium amount from complainant for the service rendered. 12. In view of fact that insured did not accept terms and conditions of fresh Insurance Policy. State Commission is of opinion that Insurance company is not legally entitled to retain the advance amount paid by complainant. It is held that commercial and non-commercial activities of Insurance Company falls within the domain of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in view of section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of opinion that word "service of any description" mentioned in section 2(0) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 includes commercial and non commercial services of Insurance company. 13. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.1 that matter is commercial in nature and jurisdiction of Consumer Fora under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is excluded is decided accordingly. Co-respondent No.1 did not file any version before learned District Forum and co-respondent No.1 also did not file any rebuttal evidence before State Commission. State Commission is of the opinion that Insurance matter whether commercial or non commercial in nature falls within the domain of Consumer Protection Act 1986 as per section 2(0) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Harsolia Motors versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2005) 1 CPJ 27 NC In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 14. Harsolia Motors versus National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2005) 1 CPJ 27 NC In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that opposite parties jointly & severally shall refund an amount to the tune of Rs.845000/-(Eight lac forty five thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till actual payment to complainant. It is further ordered that opposite parties jointly & severally shall pay compensation to complainant for mental agony and harassment to the tune of Rs.20000/-(Twenty thousand). It is further ordered that opposite parties jointly & severally shall pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). Unsigned contract dated 17.08.2015 annexure C-3 shall form part and parcel of order. Respondents shall comply order within one month after receipt of certified copy of order. 15. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Forum for information 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.