O R D E R
By Sri.C.T.Sabu, President
The facts of the case is that the complainant had joined in an insurance policy on 3/9/09 namely Kotak secure retirement policy bearing policy No.01725579 with the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party issued an insurance certificate of the 1st opposite party to the complainant. The complainant paid the 1st premium amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque dated 22/9/09 of State Bank of India. The 3rd opposite party being the broker of 1st and 2nd opposite party advised and canvassed the complainant to take the said policy. At the time of availing the policy the 3rd opposite party had virtually compelled the complainant to take the above said policy itself. They have promised that the said scheme is very beneficial and profitable. By believing the words, the complainant availed the policy. After 3 years locking period, on 10/10/12 the 1st opposite party sent a letter to the complainant that the policy revival period is over, so the policy is terminated and hence an amount of Rs.3,299.96 is refunded to the complainant as foreclosure amount vide cheque No.418719 and the cheque is also enclosed with the said letter to the complainant. The complainant was surprised when she received such a letter and so she had caused to issue a notice to the opposite party on 3/11/12 expressing her grievances and to redress her grievances. After receiving the notice , the opposite parties did not turned up. Finally the complainant had sent a lawyer notice on 7/5/13 calling upon the opposite party to return the premium amount of Rs.25,000- with interest at the rate of 14% to the complainant. . The said notice is also not seen replied by the opposite parties. The above said acts of the opposite parties are nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint is filed.
2. Admitted the case, issued notice to opposite parties, they appeared before the Commission and filed their version. 1st and 2nd opposite parties contented that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and gross misuse of process of law and liable to be dismissed. The complainant does not raise any consumer dispute as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The averments mentioned in the complaint is baseless and devoid of any merit. The main contention raised by them is that it is a settled principle of law that the issue under unit linked insurance policy is not the subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And this policy is also a Unit Linked policy. So the proposition has been propounded in the judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Ram Lal Agarwalla vs. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance (R.P.No.658/2012) is applicable in this case and has to be dismissed. The 3rd opposite party averred that being a broking firm their duty is to extend all sorts of assistance and details to a prospective customer. As desired by the complainant policy details of this alleged investment scheme had been well explained and he had been duly informed about the same. Only after understanding the terms and conditions, the policy was taken and the amount was invested with 1st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service and he complaint has to be dismissed.
3. The points for consideration are:
1)Whether this complaint is maintainable?
2)If yes, whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
3)If so, reliefs and costs ?
4.Then the case was posted for evidence. The complainant filed proof affidavit, in which she has affirmed and explained all the contentions raised in the complaint and produced 8 documents, which are marked as Exts.P1 to P8. From the side of 1st and 2nd opposite parties, they filed proof affidavit, in which they affirmed and explained the contentions raised in the version filed by them. They have produced 9 documents, which are marked as Exts.R1 to R9.
5.Before going to other issues, we have discussed the maintainability of the complaint. On going through the Ext.R1 document, it is crystal clear that the policy is a Unit Linked policy. So the principle of judgement by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Ram Lal Agarwalla vs. Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance (R.P.No.658/2012) is applicable in this case. It was observed that when the premium is invested in the market the same amount is speculative gain and the total value of investment deposits upon the volatility of the market. In such case it can be said that the customer has hired the service of the company for commercial purposes and hence cannot be termed as a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as specified under Section 2(d) of the Act. Thus in the instant complaint the disputed policy is a Unit linked policy and hence cannot be brought under the subject matter of the Consumer Protection Act. And hence deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6.Upholding the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, we have no other option to hold otherwise. In the result the complaint dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 29th day of January 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja.S Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair C.T.Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext.P1 Proposal Deposit Receipt
Ext.P2 Proposal form
Ext.P3 Appln.No.RTC005419
Ext.P4 Notice dtd. 7/12/12
Ext.P5 Letter dtd. 20/11/12
Ext.P6 Notice dtd. 3/11/12
Ext.P7 Copy of lawyer notice dtd.17/5/13
Ext.P8 Postal receipts
Opposite Parties Exhibits
Ext.R1 Copy of proposal form
Ext.R2 Copy of Benefit illustration
Ext.R3 Copy of policy terms and conditions
Ext.R4 Copy of renewal premium payment notices
Ext.R5 Copy of lt. dtd. 27/9/10
Ext.R6 Copy of lr. dtd. 28/7/12
Ext.R7 Copy of cheque
Ext.R8 Copy of letter
Ext.R9 series – copies of lr. dt. 20/11/12,27/4/13& email dtd.8/3/13
Id/-
President
